Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GMMA READY Project Terminal Eval Report - June 24 PDF
Uploaded by
IanOriginal Title
Copyright
Available Formats
Share this document
Did you find this document useful?
Is this content inappropriate?
Report this DocumentCopyright:
Available Formats
GMMA READY Project Terminal Eval Report - June 24 PDF
Uploaded by
IanCopyright:
Available Formats
Revised
Final
Version
Based
on
Discussion
with
OCD
on
June
20
Project
Terminal
Evaluation
Report
GMMA READY Project
Enhancing Greater Metro Manila’s
Institutional Capacities for Effective Disaster/ Climate Risk Management
towards Sustainable Development Project
Atlas ID 00061036
Evaluation time frame: March 1 – May 31, 2016
Date of Submission: June 10, 2016
Conducted by:
NICASIO ANGELO J. AGUSTIN
National Consultant
Executive Summary
a. Project Summary Table
Project Title: Enhancing Greater Metro Manila’s Institutional Capacities for
Effective Disaster /Climate Risk Management towards
Sustainable Development Project or GMMA READY Project
UNDAF Increased capacity of stakeholders to protect/enhance the
Outcome(s): quality of the environment and sustainably manage natural
resources, with the poor and vulnerable groups, especially
women and children, enabled to prepare for and cope with the
impacts of environmental emergencies.
Expected CP Key stakeholders are better able to manage the country’s
Outcome(s): environment and natural resources, develop and use sustainable
energy sources, cope with the impacts of environmental
emergencies and maintain sustainable development
Expected a. GMMA’s vulnerabilities to disaster and climate change risks
Outputs: assessed
b. Priority disaster/climate risk mitigation actions for GMMA
such as formulation and testing of an integrated contingency
plan and establishment of early warning systems developed
and implemented
c. Competencies of GMMA LGUs and critical partners to
mainstream DRM/CRM into local planning and regulatory
processes enhanced
d. Mainstreaming DRM/CRM into local land use/development
plan(s) and regulatory processes of Metro Manila and selected
GMMA LGUs demonstrated
e. Knowledge management system, including a vigorous
Community of Practice (CoP) on DRM/CRM established
Donor Partner: Australian Government through the then Australian Agency for
International Development (AusAID), now the Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)
Implementing National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council
Partner: (NDRRMC) -‐ Office of Civil Defense (OCD)
Responsible a. Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
Partners: (PHIVOLCS)
b. Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical
Services Administration (PAGASA)
c. National Mapping and Resource Information Authority
(NAMRIA)
d. Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB)
e. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)
2
f. Metro
Manila
Development
Authority
(MMDA)
g. Climate
Change
Commission
(CCC)
h. National
Economic
and
Development
Authority
(NEDA)
b. Project
Description
The
Project
Enhancing
Greater
Metro
Manila’s
Institutional
Capacities
for
Effective
Disaster/Climate
Risk
Management
towards
Sustainable
Development
(GMMA-‐READY
Project)
aims
to
reduce
the
vulnerability
of
the
Grater
Metro
Manila
Area
(GMMA)
to
natural
hazards
and
increase
its
resilience
by
strengthening
the
institutional
capacities
of
the
local
government
units
(LGUs),
concerned
national
government
agencies
(NGAs),
academic
institutions
and
civil
society
organizations
to
manage
disaster
and
climate
change
risks.
It
attempts
to
achieve
such
outcome
by:
(a)
assessing
the
GMMA’s
vulnerabilities
to
disaster
and
climate
change
risks;
(b)
developing
and
implementing
priority
disaster
and
climate
risk
mitigation
actions
for
GMMA
such
as
formulation
and
testing
of
an
integrated
contingency
plan
and
establishment
of
early
warning
systems;
(c)
enhancing
the
competencies
of
GMMA
LGUs
and
critical
partners
to
mainstreaming
of
disaster
and
climate
risk
management
(DRM/CRM)
into
local
planning
and
regulatory
processes;
(d)
demonstrating
the
mainstreaming
of
DRM/CRM
into
local
land
use
and
development
plans;
and
(e)
establishing
knowledge
management
system,
including
a
vigorous
Community
of
Practice
(CoP),
on
DRM/CRM.
The
project
was
envisioned
to
achieve
all
the
results
over
a
period
of
three
(3)
years
and
expected
to
improve
mechanisms
and
protocols
on
DRM/CRM.
The
project
covers
Metro
Manila
and
the
provinces
of
Rizal,
Bulacan,
Cavite
and
Laguna.
c. Evaluation
Rating
Table
Based
on
the
results
of
the
assessment,
it
can
be
gleaned
that
the
project
has
performed
well
as
presented
in
the
succeeding
ratings
of
the
various
project
outcome
dimensions:
Dimension
Rating
Rating
Description
Outcome Highly The project had no shortcomings in the
Satisfactory (HS) achievement of its objectives and expected outputs
Effectiveness
Highly
The
project
had
no
shortcomings
in
putting
in
the
Satisfactory
(HS)
right
interventions
3
Efficiency
Highly
The
project
had
no
shortcomings
in
properly
Satisfactory
(HS)
executing
interventions
M&E
Highly
The
project
had
no
shortcomings
in
monitoring
and
Satisfactory
(HS)
evaluation
of
project
progress
and
status,
and
that
proper
solutions
were
properly
undertaken
to
address
implementation
challenges
IE&A
Execution
Highly
The
project
had
no
shortcomings
in
the
execution
Satisfactory
(HS)
of
I&EA
for
the
project
and
its
components
Sustainability Likely (L) Negligible risks to sustainability
Relevance Relevant (R) Project intervention/s is/are necessary
Impacts
Significant
(S)
Impacts
of
the
project
as
of
the
time
of
evaluation
are
greatly
felt
d. Conclusions,
Lessons
and
Recommendations
On
corrective
actions
for
the
design,
implementation,
monitoring
and
evaluation
of
the
project.
Based
on
the
evaluation
of
the
project,
the
following
conclusions
could
be
derived:
(a)
the
design
of
the
project
is
in
order,
clear
and
logical
given
immediate
objectives;
(b)
some
difficulties
experienced
by
responsible
partners
and
critical
stakeholders
during
project
implementation
(e.g.,
limited
political
will,
limited
support,
indifference
and
reluctance)
are
the
function
of
IE&A.
Given
this,
IE&A
should
be
seen
as
major
entry
point
for
the
project
rather
than
a
result
of
the
various
activities
conducted
and
the
outputs
generated
by
the
project.
Gaining
support
for
and
promoting
ownership
of
the
project
by
agencies,
local
governments,
communities
and
residents
should
be
a
requisite,
deliberate
undertaking
of
this
and
similar
projects;
and
(c)
on
monitoring
and
evaluation,
adjustments
to
work
plans,
and
approvals
thereof,
should
be
documented
in
a
change
log
for
easy
tracking
of
changes
and
deviations.
Hence,
justification
at
the
end
line
would
be
easier
to
formulate.
On
actions
to
follow
up
or
reinforce
initial
benefits
from
the
project.
The
project
was
able
to
accomplish
its
deliverables
and
generated
all
the
expected
outputs.
Some
actions
are,
however,
necessary
to
reinforce
initial
benefits
derived
from
the
project
and
to
ensure
that
the
objectives
of
the
project
are
wholly
met.
These
are:
(a)
approval
of
some
CLUPs
and
ZOs;
(b)
continuous
review
and
enhancement
of
contingency
plans
of
local
government
units;
(c)
popularization
of
the
Guidebook
on
the
Formulation
of
CLUP;
(d)
popularization
of
the
technical
outputs
of
CSCAND
agencies,
e.g.,
hazard
maps
and
the
Atlas
on
the
west
and
east
valley
faults;
(e)
popularization
and
furtherance
of
the
CoP;
(f)
derive
policies
from
DRM/CRM-‐sensitive
CLUPs
and
contingency
plans
CPs)
to
improve
regulatory
4
regime
at
the
local
level;
(g)
engage
communities
in
the
upkeep
and
regular
maintenance
of
CBEWS
and
the
allocation
of
funds
by
the
local
governments
for
the
purpose;
(h)
strengthen
local
DRRM
councils
and
offices
through
regular
capacity
enhancement
programs;
(i)
continuous
conduct
of
IE&A
activities
especially
at
the
community
level;
(j)
undertake
studies
on
the
economic
valuation
of
risk
events
at
various
scenarios;
and
(k)
increase
efforts
on
climate
risk
management
especially
at
the
community
level.
On
proposals
for
future
directions
underlining
main
objectives.
The
following
proposals
are
put
forward
to
improve
the
design
and
approach
of
projects
with
similar
objectives
in
the
future:
(a)
institutionalization
and
strengthening
of
local
DRRM
councils
and
offices
by
providing
adequate
regular
plantilla
positions
and
incentives
to
employees
and
equipping
them
with
facilities
and
equipment
that
are
useful
and
responsive
during
times
of
emergencies;
(b)
assistance
to
local
DRRM
councils
and
offices
on
the
judicious
use
of
LDRRM
Fund;
(c)
review
of
the
Procurement
Law
and
engage
the
Commission
on
Audit
(COA)
to
facilitate
the
process
of
procuring
essential
supplies
and
goods
during
disaster
and
emergency
situations;
(d)
strengthen
regulatory
processes
at
the
local
level
making
them
more
DRM/CRM-‐sensitive;
(e)
increase
participation
and
enhance
capacities
of
private
sector
groups,
i.e.,
business,
academe
and
civil
society
organizations,
in
responding
to
the
challenges
of
disasters
and
climate
change;
(f)
the
national
government
–
through
the
NDRRMC-‐OCD
–
should
create
a
special
project
on
DRM/CRM
that
adopts
and
replicates
the
GMMA-‐READY
Project
in
highly
urbanized
cities
and
other
urbanized
and
calamity-‐vulnerable
areas
and
provide
annual
appropriations
through
the
General
Appropriation
Acts
(GAA)
of
the
country;
(g)
the
government
should
endeavor
to
roll
out
the
processes
and
approaches
employed
in
the
project
in
local
government
planning
and
regulatory
processes;
and
(h)
creation
of
a
National
Disaster
Risk
Management
Authority
(NDRMA),
renaming
NDRRMC-‐OCD
and
further
strengthening
the
CSCAND
agencies
and
capacitating
LGUs.
On
best
practices
in
addressing
issues
relating
to
relevance,
performance
and
success
of
the
project.
Some
of
the
best
practices
that
could
be
extracted
from
the
implementation
experiences
of
the
project
include:
a. Output-‐based
management
and
financing
for
project
components.
This
allowed
flexibility
on
the
part
of
the
responsible
partners
in
adjusting
and
customizing
activities
that
fit
the
requirements
for
the
production
or
generation
of
intended
outputs.
b. Interdependence
instead
of
compartmentalization
of
project
components.
Responsible
partners
worked
closely
together
in
all
components
of
the
project
because
their
inputs
were
deemed
important.
It
promotes
functional
effectiveness
and
cost-‐efficiency.
c. Local
manufacturer
for
CBEWS.
This
lessened
the
cost
of
production
and
manufacturing,
installation
of
and
the
provision
of
after-‐sale
services
for
5
CBEWS.
This
also
allowed
the
development
of
local
innovators
and
scientists.
The
replication
of
these
CBEWS
in
other
parts
of
the
country
would
be
easier
and
less
expensive.
6
Table
of
Contents
Opening
Page
1
Executive
Summary
2
Table
of
Contents
7
List
of
Tables
9
List
of
Figures
10
Acronyms
and
Abbreviations
11
I.
Introduction
16
1.1
Context
of
the
evaluation
16
1.2
Purpose
of
the
evaluation
16
1.3
Approach
and
conceptual
evaluation
framework
17
1.4
Major
evaluation
activities
18
1.5
Structure
of
the
Terminal
Evaluation
Report
20
II.
The
GMMA
READY
Project
22
2.1
Project
description
and
development
context
22
2.2
Project
start
and
duration
22
2.3
Problems
that
the
project
sought
to
address
22
2.4
Immediate
and
development
objectives
of
the
project
24
2.5
Baseline
indicators
established
25
2.6
Main
stakeholders
26
2.7
Expected
results
26
III.
Findings
27
3.1
Project
design
and
formulation
27
3.2
Project
implementation
41
3.3
Project
results
51
IV.
Lessons,
Conclusions
and
Recommendations
61
4.1
Corrective
actions
for
the
design,
implementation,
61
monitoring
and
evaluation
of
the
project
4.2
Actions
to
follow
up
or
reinforce
initial
benefits
from
61
the
project
4.3
Proposals
or
future
directions
underlining
main
62
objectives
7
4.4
Best
practices
in
addressing
issues
relating
to
63
relevance,
performance
and
success
Annexes
1.
Terms
of
Reference
65
2.
List
of
Documents
Reviewed
77
3.
Itinerary:
Schedule
and
Type
of
Activities
Conducted
78
4.
Participants
to
the
Series
of
Interview
and
Focus
79
Group
Discussions
5.
Guide
Questions
to
Interview
and
Focus
Group
84
Discussions
6.
Summary
of
Responses
to
Interview
and
Focus
Group
86
Discussions
7.
Consolidated
Comments
Raised
in
the
Interview
98
8.
Project
Evaluation
Rating
and
Survey
Forms
100
9.
Summary
of
Project
Evaluation
Ratings
and
Comments
104
8
List
of
Tables
Table
No.
1.
Number
of
Participants
in
Interview
and
Focus
Group
19
Discussions
2.
Baseline
Indicators
for
the
Project
25
3.
Project
Output
Indicators
31
4.
Other
Outputs
and
Results
of
the
Project
33
5.
Critical
Assumptions
and
Risks
for
the
Project
34
6.
Linkages
and
Complementation
with
other
Related
Programs
39
and
Initiatives
7.
Engagement
of
Partners
in
the
Delivery
of
Project
Outputs
42
8.
Financial
Status
of
the
Project,
as
of
May
2016
46
9.
Level
of
Accomplishment
of
the
Project
per
Expected
Output
51
10.
Project
Accomplishments
for
Output
1
52
11.
Project
Accomplishments
for
Output
2
55
12.
Project
Accomplishments
for
Output
3
56
13.
Project
Accomplishments
for
Output
4
57
14.
Project
Accomplishments
for
Output
5
57
15.
Summary
of
Evaluation
Rating
for
the
Project
58
9
List
of
Figures
Figure
No.
1.
Respondents
to
the
Evaluation
Rating
Survey
20
2.
Alignment
of
GMMA
READY
Project
with
AusAID
(DFAT)
and
28
UNDP
3.
Results
Framework
of
the
GMMA
READY
Project
29
4.
The
Theory
of
Change
for
the
GMMA
READY
Project
31
5.
Arrangement
of
Key
Project
Partners
36
6.
Project
Organizational
Structure
40
7.
Engagement
of
Project
Partners
and
Stakeholders
44
8.
Entry
and
Implementation
Design
48
10
Acronyms
and
Abbreviations
AusAID
Australian
Agency
for
International
Development
BCPR
Bureau
for
Crisis
Prevention
and
Recovery
CBEWS
Community-‐based
Early
Warning
System
CCA
Climate
Change
Act
CCA
Climate
Change
Adaptation
CCC
Climate
Change
Commission
CIDA
Canadian
International
Development
Assistance
CLGU
City
Local
Government
Unit
CLUP
Comprehensive
Land
Use
Plan
COA
Commission
on
Audit
CoP
Community
of
Practice
CP
Contingency
Plan
CPAP
Country
Programme
Action
Plan
CPDC
City
Planning
and
Development
Coordinator
CPDO
City
Planning
and
Development
Office
CRM
Climate
Risk
Management
CSCAND
Collective
Strengthening
of
Community
Awareness
for
Natural
Disaster
DAS
Philippines-‐Australia
Development
Assistance
Strategy
for
2007-‐2011
DFAT
Department
of
Foreign
Affair
and
Trade
DILG
Department
of
the
Interior
and
Local
Government
DOH
Department
of
Health
DOST
Department
of
Science
and
Technology
DPWH
Department
of
Public
Works
and
Highways
DRM
Disaster
Risk
Management
DRRMC
Disaster
Risk
Reduction
and
Management
Council
DRRMO
Disaster
Risk
Reduction
and
Management
Office
EIL
Earthquake
Induced
Landslide
EMB
Environmental
Management
Bureau
11
EWD
Early
Warning
Device
FCOS
Flood
Control
Operation
System
FGD
Focus
Group
Discussion
GAA
General
Appropriation
Act
GAP
Geohazard
Assessment
Program
GIA
Geomorphic
Impact
Assessment
GIA
Grant-‐in-‐Aid
GIM
Geohazard
Impact
Model
GIS
Geographic
Information
System
GR
Ground
Rapture
GS
Ground
Shaking
GMMA
Greater
Metro
Manila
Area
GMMA
READY
Enhancing
Greater
Metro
Manila’s
Institutional
Capacities
for
Effective
Disaster/Climate
Risk
Management
towards
Sustainable
Development
H&V
Hazard
and
Vulnerability
HLURB
Housing
and
Land
Use
Regulatory
Board
IE&A
Information,
Education
and
Advocacy
IEC
Information
and
Education
Campaign
IfSAR
Interferometric
Synthetic
Aperture
Radar
IP
Implementing
Partner
ISSP
Information
Systems
Strategic
Plan
KII
Key
Informant
Interview
KOICA
Korean
International
Cooperation
Agency
KM
Knowledge
Management
LDRRM
Local
Disaster
Risk
Reduction
and
Management
LGU
Local
Government
Unit
LiDAR
Light
Detection
and
Ranging
MDG
Millennium
Development
Goal
M&E
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
MGB
Mines
and
Geosciences
Bureau
MM
Metropolitan
Manila
12
MMA
Metropolitan
Manila
Area
MMDA
Metro
Manila
Development
Authority
MMEIRS
Metro
Manila
Earthquake
Impact
Reduction
Study
MMRPFP
Metro
Manila
Regional
Physical
Framework
Plan
MOA
Memorandum
of
Agreement
MOU
Memorandum
of
Understanding
MLGU
Municipal
Local
Government
Unit
MPDC
Municipal
Planning
and
Development
Coordinator
MPDO
Municipal
Planning
and
Development
Office
MTPDP
Medium-‐Term
Philippine
Development
Plan:
2004-‐2010
NAMRIA
National
Mapping
and
Resource
Information
Authority
NDCC
National
Disaster
Coordinating
Council
NDRMA
National
Disaster
Risk
Management
Authority
NDRRMC
National
Disaster
Risk
Reduction
and
Management
Council
NEDA
National
Economic
and
Development
Authority
NFPP
National
Framework
for
Physical
Planning:
2000-‐2030
NGA
National
Government
Agency
NOAH
Nationwide
Operational
Assessment
of
Hazards
OCD
Office
of
Civil
Defense
OCHA
Office
of
Coordination
and
Humanitarian
Affairs
PAGASA
Philippine
Atmospheric,
Geophysical
and
Astronomical
Services
Administration
PA
Project
Assurance
PDRRMA
Philippine
Disaster
Risk
Reduction
and
Management
Act
PHIVOLCS
Philippine
Institute
of
Volcanology
and
Seismology
PIA
Philippine
Information
Agency
PLGU
Provincial
Local
Government
Unit
PNP
Philippine
National
Police
PMD
Project
Management
Division
PMO
Project
Management
Office
PPDC
Provincial
Planning
and
Development
Coordinator
PPDO
Provincial
Planning
and
Development
Office
13
REDAS
Rapid
Earthquake
Disaster
Assessment
System
REINA
Real,
Infanta
and
General
Nakar
RIL
Rain
Induced
Landslide
RP
Responsible
Partner
RPFP
Regional
Physical
Framework
Plan
SNAP
Strategic
National
Action
Plan
SPOT
Satellite
Pour
l’Observation
de
la
Terre
SS
Storm
Surge
TOR
Terms
of
Reference
TS
Tropical
Storm
UN
United
Nations
UNCCA
UN
Common
Country
Assessment
UNDAF
UN
Development
Assistance
Framework
(UNDAF)
UNDP
United
Nations
Development
Programme
ZO
Zoning
Ordinance
14
Main
Report
15
I. Introduction
1.1
Context
of
the
evaluation
This
terminal
evaluation
report
was
prepared
as
a
requisite
step
in
the
formal
closure
of
the
“Enhancing
Greater
Metro
Manila’s
Institutional
Capacities
for
Effective
Disaster
/Climate
Risk
Management
towards
Sustainable
Development
Project,”
most
commonly
known
as
GMMA
READY
Project,
following
a
3-‐year
implementation
period.
By
contractual
agreement
between
the
United
Nations
Development
Programme
(UNDP)
and
the
Office
of
Civil
Defense
(OCD)
as
the
primary
implementing
entity
for
the
project,
the
project
has
ended
in
March
31,
2016.
A
two-‐month
extension
was
accorded
to
give
way
for
the
conduct
of
this
terminal
evaluation.
On
March
30,
2016,
the
UNDP
commissioned
the
services
of
a
National
Consultant
to
expedite
the
conduct
of
this
terminal
evaluation.
The
Terms
of
Reference
(TOR)
for
the
engagement
is
attached
as
Annex
1
to
this
report.
1.2
Purpose
of
the
evaluation
The
objectives
of
the
evaluation
are
to
assess
the
achievement
of
project
results,
draw
lessons
and
good
practices
that
can
both
improve
the
sustainability
of
benefits
from
the
project
and
aid
in
the
overall
enhancement
of
UNDP
and
GOP
programming.
Specifically, the terminal evaluation was designed to:
a. Assess
Project
Results.
The
final
evaluation
assesses
the
achievement
of
the
project’s
objective,
outputs
and
outcomes
and
provides
ratings
for
the
targeted
objective
and
outcomes
and
the
extent
to
which
they
were
achieved.
b. Assess
Sustainability
of
Project
Outcomes.
The
final
evaluation
assesses
the
likelihood
of
sustainability
of
outcomes
at
project
termination,
and
provide
a
rating
for
this.
c. Assess
the
Project’s
Catalytic
Role/Partnerships
and
Replicability.
The
final
evaluation
also
describes
any
catalytic
or
replication
effect
of
the
project.
d. Assess
the
Project’s
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
System.
The
final
evaluation
assesses
whether
the
project
met
the
minimum
requirements
for
project
design
of
M&E
and
the
implementation
of
the
Project
M&E
plan.
16
e. Assess
Processes
that
Affected
Attainment
of
Project
Results.
The
assessment
describes
the
adaptive
management
practices
and
management
arrangements
employed
in
the
project
and
determine
how
such
hindered
or
facilitated
the
implementation
of
the
project.
f. Identify
lessons
and
provide
recommendations
for
future
actions.
The
evaluation
presents
lessons
and
recommendations
on
all
aspects
of
the
project.
1.3
Approach
and
conceptual
evaluation
framework
The
evaluation
was
guided
by
a
simple
conceptual
framework
(a
systems
approach),
as
presented
below:
Input/Activity
Throughput
Output
• Assessment
of
Project’s
Progress
Project
Documents
• Review
of
project
design
towards
Results
which
include
and
results
framework
Project’s
monitoring
assessment
of
project
design
and
system
• Comparative
Analysis
of
project
progress
to
date
Project
Targets
and
• Assessment
of
the
project
M
&
E
Project
system
Accomplishments
• Assessment
of
relevance,
Conduct
of
Field
Visits,
• Consolidation
and
efficiency,
effectiveness,
KIIs
and
FGDs
guided
by
processing
sustainability
and
impact
of
a
set
of
questionnaires,
• Generation
of
best
adaptive
management
processes
discussion
guides,
rating
practices,
lessons
and
(work
planning,
finance,
forms
and
tracking
tools
recommendations
monitoring
systems,
risk
for
results
management
and
reporting)
• Assessment
of
the
effectiveness
of
overall
project
management,
decision-‐making
processes
and
execution
of
project
activities
• Assessment
of
relevance,
effectiveness
and
efficiency
of
project
evolving
and
emerging
outcomes
• List
of
positive
and
negative
actual
and
anticipated
impacts
or
emerging
long-‐term
effects
of
the
project
• Best
practices
and
lessons
from
the
project
• Assessment
on
the
establishment
of
a
community
of
practice
Initial results of Consolidation and • Assessment of sustainability of
assessment on (a) processing project outcomes, risks and
progress towards results; contextual factors in the areas of
(b) adaptive finance, socio-‐political,
17
Input/Activity
Throughput
Output
management;
and
(c)
institutional
and
governance,
and
management
environment.
arrangements
and
• Assessment
of
the
catalytic
role
processes
and
replicability
of
the
project
and
significant
project
interventions
• A
set
of
recommendations
in
improving
project
design
and
implementation
for
guidance
of
UNDP
and
GOP
programming
1.4
Major
evaluation
activities
To
achieve
its
objectives,
the
evaluation
entailed
the
review
of
documents
relating
to
the
design,
progress
and
achievements
of
the
project;
conduct
of
a
series
of
key
informants
interview
and
focus
group
discussions;
conduct
of
project
site
visits;
and
administration
of
rating
survey.
The
review
of
documents
was
intended
to
check
the
completeness
of
information
and
documents
to
enable
the
conduct
of
thorough
and
evidence-‐based
assessment
of
project
performance.
Indicative
assessment
and
accounting
of
project
targets
vis-‐à-‐vis
performance
were
undertaken.
This
stage
also
enabled
the
identification
of
information
gaps.
Annex
2
of
this
report
presents
the
list
of
documents
reviewed
for
the
evaluation.
The
conduct
of
project
site
visits,
series
of
interview
and
focus
group
discussions
was
intended
to:
(a)
document
physical
manifestations
of
project
outputs
(e.g.,
early
warning
signals
and
devices,
IEC
materials,
etc.);
(b)
gather
additional
documents
on
targets
and
accomplishments
(e.g.,
MOUs/MOAs,
knowledge
products);
(c)
conduct
face-‐to-‐face
interview
with
partners
and
other
collaborators
(e.g.,
non-‐government
representatives
in
local
DRRM
councils)
to
generate
information
on
project
outcomes
and
impacts;
(d)
administer
questionnaires
and
rating
forms
which
are
intended
to
assess
relevance,
efficiency,
effectiveness,
sustainability
and
impact
of
specific
project
interventions
introduced;
(e)
validate
and
clarify
information
from
the
desk/document
review;
and
(f)
allow
specific
groups
to
raise
issues
and
concerns
as
well
as
to
share
best
practices
(procedures
and
processes)
in
implementing
and
executing
project
interventions.
Annex
3
presents
the
itinerary
in
the
conduct
of
evaluation
activities.
In
particular,
Annex
4
presents
the
list
of
officers
and
staff
who
were
interviewed
and
who
participated
in
the
focus
group
discussions
in
different
areas
and
project
sites.
The
conduct
of
interview
and
focus
group
discussions
was
facilitated
through
a
set
of
guide
questions,
as
presented
in
Annex
5.
A
summary
result
of
responses
to
the
interview
and
focus
group
discussions
are
presented
in
Annex
6.
It
should
be
noted
that
in
the
conduct
of
some
focus
group
discussions,
the
guide
questions
were
sent
18
out
in
advance
to
prepare
the
participants
and
ensure
that
if
ever
they
attend,
they
would
have
something
substantive
to
share
in
the
discussion.
Some
participants
submitted
the
accomplished
guide
questions
while
some
who
were
unable
to
attend
simply
emailed
their
responses
to
the
Consultant.
In
some
interviews,
the
questions
were
focused
on
three
major
items
only,
namely:
(a)
progress
towards
results;
(b)
adaptive
management
practices
of
the
project;
and
(c)
management
arrangements
employed
by
the
project.
The
results
of
the
interview
are
presented
in
Annex
7.
Table
1
shows
the
number
of
participants
to
the
interview
and
focus
group
discussions
broken
down
by
activity,
location
and
gender.
Table
1.
Number
of
Participants
in
Interview
and
Focus
Group
Discussions
No.
of
Participants
Activity
Male
Female
Total
Interview
6
5
11
Focus
group
discussion
in
Bulacan
14
8
22
Focus
group
discussion
in
Barangay
Lambac,
14
14
28
Mabitac,
Laguna
Focus
group
discussion
in
Sta.
Maria,
Laguna
14
2
26
Focus
group
discussion
for
the
members
of
4
3
7
Metro
Manila
DRRM
Council
Focus
group
discussion
for
responsible
4
11
15
partners
Focus
group
discussion
for
local
government
20
10
30
units
in
Metro
Manila
Total
66
53
139
The
evaluation
rating
survey
was
administered
to
49
selected
participants
from
responsible
partners
(12),
members
of
provincial
(8)
and
municipal/city
(18)
DRRM
councils,
and
local
community
leaders
and
barangay
folks
(11)
during
the
conduct
of
interview
and
focus
group
discussions.
The
evaluation
rating
survey
form,
as
presented
in
Annex
8,
covers
the
following
dimensions:
outcome,
effectiveness,
efficiency,
M&E,
IE&A
execution,
relevance,
sustainability,
and
impact.
Out
of
the
49
respondents,
only
25
representatives
from
responsible
partners,
local
DRRM
councils
and
community
leaders
were
selected
to
respond
to
the
dimensions
on
effectiveness,
efficiency,
M&E
and
IE&A
execution.
The
results
of
the
evaluation
rating
for
the
various
dimensions
are
presented
in
Annex
9.
19
The
49
respondents
to
the
evaluation
rating
survey
and
their
affiliation
can
be
seen
in
Figure
1.
Responsible
Partners
11
12
MDRRMC Members -‐ Bulacan
and Laguna
PDRRMC Members -‐ Bulacan
8
and Laguna
Barangay DRMMC and
Community Members
18
Figure
1.
Respondents
to
the
Evaluation
Rating
Survey
1.5
Structure
of
the
Terminal
Evaluation
Report
This
evaluation
report
is
composed
of
4
parts.
Part
one
is
the
introduction.
This
part
includes
a
narrative
on
the
purpose
of
the
evaluation,
scope
and
methodology
employed
in
the
evaluation.
Part
2
provides
the
project
description
and
development
context,
the
project
start
and
duration,
the
problems
that
the
project
sought
to
address,
the
immediate
and
development
objectives
of
the
project,
the
baseline
indicators
established
for
the
project,
the
main
stakeholders,
and
the
project’s
expected
results
Part
3
presents
the
findings
of
the
evaluation
in
terms
of
the
following:
(a)
project
design
and
formulation;
(b)
analysis
of
results
framework
(project
logic/strategy
and
indicators);
(c)
assumptions
and
risks;
(d)
lessons
from
other
relevant
projects
(e.g.,
same
focal
area)
incorporated
into
project
design;
(e)
planned
stakeholder
participation;
(f)
UNDP’s
comparative
advantage
in
sponsoring
the
project;
and
(g)
linkages
between
project
and
other
interventions
within
the
sector.
20
In
addition,
this
part
of
the
report
also
presents
findings
on
project
Implementation
in
the
areas
of:
(a)
adaptive
management
(changes
to
the
project
design
and
project
outputs
during
implementation);
(b)
partnership
arrangements
(with
relevant
stakeholders
involved
in
the
country/region);
(c)
feedback
from
M&E
activities
used
for
adaptive
management;
(d)
project
finance;
(e)
monitoring
and
evaluation;
(f)
design
at
entry
and
implementation;
and
(g)
UNDP
and
implementing
partner
implementation
and
execution,
coordination,
and
operational
issues.
Other
major
portion
of
Part
3
is
the
presentation
of
the
overall
results
(attainment
of
objectives)
of
the
project
and
some
discussions
on
the
perceived
relevance,
effectiveness
and
efficiency
of
the
project,
sustainability
concerns,
and
evolving
impacts
of
the
project.
Part
4
of
the
report
presents
the
lessons,
conclusions
and
recommendations
which
are
categorized
into
four
(4)
major
items,
to
wit:
(a)
corrective
actions
for
the
design,
implementation,
monitoring
and
evaluation
of
the
project;
(b)
actions
to
follow
up
or
reinforce
initial
benefits
from
the
project;
(c)
proposals
for
future
directions
underlining
main
objectives;
and
(d)
some
best
practices
in
addressing
issues
relating
to
relevance,
performance,
and
success.
21
II.
The
GMMA
READY
Project
2.1
Project
description
and
development
context
The
Project
Enhancing
Greater
Metro
Manila’s
Institutional
Capacities
for
Effective
Disaster/Climate
Risk
Management
towards
Sustainable
Development
(GMMA-‐READY
Project)
aims
to
reduce
the
vulnerability
of
the
Grater
Metro
Manila
Area
(GMMA)
to
natural
hazards
and
increase
its
resilience
by
strengthening
the
institutional
capacities
of
the
local
government
units
(LGUs),
concerned
national
government
agencies
(NGAs),
academic
institutions
and
civil
society
organizations
to
manage
disaster
and
climate
change
risks.
It
attempts
to
achieve
such
outcome
by:
(a)
assessing
the
GMMA’s
vulnerabilities
to
disaster
and
climate
change
risks;
(b)
developing
and
implementing
priority
disaster
and
climate
risk
mitigation
actions
for
GMMA
such
as
formulation
and
testing
of
an
integrated
contingency
plan
and
establishment
of
early
warning
systems;
(c)
enhancing
the
competencies
of
GMMA
LGUs
and
critical
partners
to
mainstreaming
of
disaster
and
climate
risk
management
(DRM/CRM)
into
local
planning
and
regulatory
processes;
(d)
demonstrating
the
mainstreaming
of
DRM/CRM
into
local
land
use
and
development
plans;
and
(e)
establishing
knowledge
management
system,
including
a
vigorous
Community
of
Practice
(CoP),
on
DRM/CRM.
The
project
was
envisioned
to
achieve
all
the
results
over
a
period
of
three
(3)
years
and
expected
to
improve
mechanisms
and
protocols
on
DRM/CRM.
The
project
covers
Metro
Manila
and
the
provinces
of
Rizal,
Bulacan,
Cavite
and
Laguna.
2.2
Project
start
and
duration
The
project
was
initially
intended
for
implementation
from
April
1,
2011
to
March
31,
2014.
Inasmuch
as
the
project
was
only
able
to
take
off
from
the
ground
in
2012,
the
end
line
was
moved
to
December
2015,
then,
later
on
extended
up
to
March
31,
2016.
2.3
Problems
that
the
project
sought
to
address1
As
a
country
situated
in
the
Pacific
Ring
of
Fire,
the
Philippines
is
prone
to
the
impacts
of
natural
hazards.
Its
metropolitan
centers
(e.g.,
Metro
Manila,
Metro
Cebu,
Metro
Davao)
with
their
dense
and
increasing
population
and
associated
problems
like
increasing
unsafe
settlements
and
infrastructure,
are
considered
to
be
increasingly
vulnerable
to
the
threat
of
natural
disasters.
Typhoons,
which
visit
the
Philippines
at
an
average
of
20
times
a
year,
cause
considerable
damage
to
properties
and
injury
to
many
people
in
the
country’s
urban
centers
like
Metro
1
Culled
from
GMMA
READY
Project
Document,
UNDP,
2011.
22
Manila.
Increasing
construction
and
informal
settlements,
including
organic,
uncontrolled
growth
and
development
near
hazardous
areas,
have
also
made
the
mega-‐cities
like
Metro
Manila,
highly
vulnerable
to
natural
disasters.
The
country’s
vulnerability
to
natural
hazards
have
been
recognized
in
the
2004
UN
Common
Country
Assessment
(CCA)
for
the
Philippines,
which
was
subsequently
translated
into
specific
outcomes
and
response
measures
in
the
2005-‐2009
UN
Development
Assistance
Framework
(UNDAF)
and
the
2005-‐2009
United
Nations
Development
Programme’s
(UNDP)
Country
Programme
Action
Plan
(CPAP).
The
risk
of
meteorological
disasters
is
expected
to
increase
even
more
with
the
onset
of
climate
change.
Tropical
Storm
Ketsana
(TS
Ondoy)
simply
underscored
this
fact
when
it
brought
rains
which
caused
massive
flooding
and
unprecedented
damage.
The
climate
scenarios
generated
by
PAGASA
for
2020
and
2050
also
seem
to
indicate
the
probability
of
increased
precipitation
compared
to
baseline
(2000)
data.
Metropolitan
Manila,
with
its
population
of
about
12
million
in
its
636
square
kilometer
land
area
is
considered
the
most
vulnerable
among
the
country’s
metropolis
to
multi-‐hazards,
including
flooding.
As
one
of
the
largest
and
most
complex
urban
regions
in
Southeast
Asia,
it
is
the
center
of
political,
economic
and
cultural
activities
in
the
country
and
host
to
major
government
agencies,
educational
and
cultural
centers.
Through
the
years,
Metro
Manila
has
grown
to
an
agglomeration
of
16
cities
and
one
municipality.
As
is
true
of
many
other
cities
in
developing
nations,
Metro
Manila
has
undergone
a
steady
trend
of
urbanization.
Typhoon
Ondoy
which
traversed
Metro
Manila
and
nearby
localities
was
not
strong
by
conventional
standards
but
managed
to
cause
devastation
at
levels
that
have
never
been
seen
in
the
Philippines
for
a
long
time.
It
caught
Metro
Manila
by
surprise
and
underscored
the
vulnerability
of
the
Metropolis
and
surrounding
environs
to
disaster
risks,
especially
those
spawned
by
meteorological
hazards
like
typhoons.
It
also
emphasized
the
gaps
in
terms
of
disaster
risk
management,
especially
mitigating
measures
such
as
early
warning
systems,
and
operational
integrated
contingency
plan
and
functional
disaster
coordinating
mechanisms
from
the
barangay
to
the
metropolitan
region
level.
Moreover,
PAGASA’s
weather
forecasting
accuracy
is
severely
constrained
by
limited
instrumentalities
such
as
the
very
small
number
of
Doppler
radars
throughout
the
country
including
Metro
Manila.
The
Ondoy
experience
showed
that
an
early
lead
time
for
the
forecast
and
an
appropriate
severe
weather
event
monitoring
system
that
provides
real-‐time
data
could
have
forestalled
the
catastrophe
which
hit
Metro
Manila.
Further,
the
pronounced
absence
of
timely
and
effective
response
simply
showcased
the
severe
lack
of
preparedness
by
the
local
government
units,
including
the
Metro
Manila
Development
Authority
(MMDA),
to
deal
with
large
scale
natural
hazards
such
as
TS
Ondoy
and
forestall
disasters.
Aon
the
community
side,
the
local
populace
didn’t
seem
to
have
been
informed,
much
less
trained,
to
cope
with
this
23
kind
of
situation
or
event.
There
was
confusion
and
even
panic
when
the
floodwaters
started
to
rise
and
spread
because
of
the
continuous
rains.
With
other
natural
disaster
threats
such
as
earthquakes
looming
in
the
horizon,
Metro
Manila
cannot
continue
the
“business
as
usual”
practice
of
not
factoring
disaster
risks
into
its
planning,
programming
and
implementation
activities.
It
is
very
critical
for
the
capacities
of
the
various
development
and
risk
management
actors
in
the
metropolis
and
surrounding
environs
to
be
enhanced
immediately
to
forestall
future
catastrophes,
especially
with
the
projected
impacts
of
climate
change.
Corolarily,
the
capacities
of
national
government
agencies
such
as
PAGASA
and
PHIVOLCS,
among
others,
should
likewise
to
enhanced
to
enable
them
to
supply
the
needed
risk
information
and
technical
advice
to
these
local
actors
in
a
timely
manner
for
informed
and
rational
decisions
in
times
of
emergencies.
In
the
medium
to
long-‐term
periods,
there
is
a
need
to
deal
decisively
with
factors
which
aggravate
the
risks
from
multi-‐hazards
like
Metro
Manila’s
rapidly
deteriorating
environmental
condition,
especially
air
and
water
pollution
and
solid
waste,
among
others.
Socio-‐economic
related
problems
like
the
proliferation
of
informal
settlements
in
danger
zones
and
the
poverty
situation
which
generally
increase
vulnerabilities
to
the
impacts
of
natural
hazards,
should
be
re-‐examined
and
strategies
drawn
up
as
part
of
a
comprehensive
approach
to
Metro
Manila’s
redevelopment.
This
can
be
undertaken
in
the
context
of
preparing
for
coping
with
climate
change
impacts,
solidly
anchored
on
a
vulnerability
and
adaptation
analysis
and
disaster/climate
risk
management
measures
mainstreamed
into
the
LGUs’
comprehensive
land
use
and
development
plans
and
regulatory
processes.
2.4
Immediate
and
development
objectives
of
the
project
Metropolitan
Manila,
with
its
population
of
about
12
million
in
its
636
square
kilometer
land
area
is
considered
the
most
vulnerable
among
the
country’s
metropolitan
centers
to
multi-‐hazards,
including
flooding.
The
risk
of
meteorological
disasters
is
expected
to
increase
even
more
with
the
onset
of
climate
change.
The
GMMA
READY
Project
aims
to
decrease
the
vulnerability
of
the
Greater
Metro
Manila
Area
(GMMA)
to
natural
hazards
and
increase
their
resilience,
by
strengthening
the
institutional
capacities
of
the
local
government
units,
concerned
national
government
agencies,
academic
institutions
and
civil
society
organizations
to
manage
disaster
and
climate
change
risks.
At
the
national
level,
the
project
aims
to
institutionalize
and
standardize
Disaster
Risk
Management
(DRM)
measures
and
processes,
while
at
the
local
level,
it
aims
to
empower
the
most
vulnerable
cities
and
municipalities
in
the
Philippines
and
to
enable
communities
to
prepare
DRM
plans
and
to
integrate
them
into
their
respective
land
use
and
development
plans.
24
2.5
Baseline
Indicators
established
The
project
was
intended
to
achieve
results
that
would
improve
and
enhance
the
capacities
of
institutions
engaged
in
DRM/CRM
both
at
the
national
and
sub-‐
national
levels.
Based
on
the
project
document,
the
baseline
as
well
as
results
indicators
are
presented
in
Table
2.
Table
2.
Baseline
and
Results
Indicators
for
the
Project
Intended
Outputs
Baseline
Indicators
Output
1:
Disaster
and
climate
MMEIRS
Study,
Initial
Number
of
hazard/risk
maps
risk
vulnerabilities
assessed
National
produced
for
GMMA.
Communication
on
Number
of
vulnerability
and
Climate
Change
adaptation
assessment
reports
produced
for
GMMA.
Output
2:
Priority
disaster
and
FCOS
which
was
setup
Percent
increase
over
baseline
in
climate
risk
mitigation
actions
to
mitigate
flooding
of
number
of
CBEWS
established
for
GMMA
developed
and
the
Pasig-‐Marikina
and
operational
in
priority
sites;
implemented
since
1993
percent
increase
over
baseline
in
preparedness
capacity
of
GMMA
by
end
of
project
Output
3:
Competencies
of
Some
LGUs
with
Percent
increase
over
baseline
GMMA
LGUs
and
critical
competency
on
competency
of
LGUs
and
partners
(NGAs,
academe,
preparedness
and
partners
(including
sectoral
and
professional
associations)
to
response
but
not
on
risk
agencies)
on
mainstreaming
mainstream
DRM/CRM
into
DRR
in
general
DRM/CRM
into
GMMA
planning
local
planning
and
regulatory
and
regulatory
processes)
processes
enhanced
Output
4:
DRM/CRM
Existing
and
use
and
Percent
increase
over
baseline
of
mainstreaming
demonstrated
development
plans
do
plans
and
regulatory
processes
in
local
land
use
and
not
reflect
exhibiting
risk
based
strategies
development
plans
and
disaster/climate
risks
regulatory
processes
of
Metro
and
risk
management
Manila
and
other
selected
options
GMMA
LGUs
Output
5:
D/CRM
Knowledge
Integrated
disaster/
Integrated
disaster/
climate
risk
Management
System
and/or
climate
risk
management
and
CoP
in
place
Community
of
Practice
management
and
CoP
and
operational
by
end
of
project
established
non-‐existent
for
GMMA
25
2.6
Main
stakeholders
The
implementation
of
the
GMMA
READY
Project
is
a
collaborative
endeavor
between
and
among
a
number
of
national
and
sub-‐national
agencies,
local
government
units
(LGUs)
and
civil
society
organizations
with
the
National
Disaster
Risk
Reduction
and
Management
Council
(NDRRMC)
–
Office
of
Civil
Defense
(OCD)
as
Implementing
Partner
(IP)
and
the
following
agencies
as
Responsible
Partners
(RPs)
with
DILG
and
NEDA
as
Cooperating
Agencies:
a. Philippine
Institute
of
Volcanology
and
Seismology
(PHIVOLCS)
b. Philippine
Atmospheric,
Geophysical
and
Astronomical
Services
Administration
(PAGASA)
c. National
Mapping
and
Resource
Information
Authority
(NAMRIA)
d. Mines
and
Geosciences
Bureau
(MGB)
e. Housing
and
Land
Use
Regulatory
Board
(HLURB)
f. Metro
Manila
Development
Authority
(MMDA)
g. Climate
Change
Commission
(CCC)
The
Project
aims
to
increase
institutional
capacities
of
key
local
and
national
risk
management
actors
towards
a
disaster
/climate
resilient
GMMA.
The
project
has
as
coverage:
Metro
Manila
in
the
national
capital
region
and
the
contiguous
provinces
of
Laguna,
Cavite
and
Rizal
in
Region
IVA,
and
the
province
of
Bulacan
in
Region
III.
2.7 Expected Results
The project was designed to attain five (5) key outputs, namely:
a. Expected Output 1: GMMA’s vulnerabilities to disaster and climate
change risks assessed
b. Expected Output 2: Priority disaster/climate risk mitigation actions for
GMMA such as formulation and testing of an integrated contingency plan
and establishment of early warning systems developed and implemented
c. Expected Output 3: Competencies of GMMA LGUs and critical partners to
mainstream DRM/CRM into local planning and regulatory processes
enhanced
d. Expected Output 4: Mainstreaming DRM/CRM into local land
use/development plan(s) and regulatory processes of Metro Manila and
selected GMMA LGUs demonstrated
e. Expected Output 5: Knowledge management system, including a
vigorous Community of Practice (CoP) on DRM/CRM established
26
III.
Findings
3.1
Project
Design
/
Formulation
a. Analysis
of
Results
Framework
(Project
logic
/strategy/Indicators)
The
project
was
intended
to
address
the
capacity
gaps
identified
in
the
project
document,
and
as
discussed
in
item
2.3
in
the
preceding
chapter
of
this
report,
specifically
for
both
at
the
institutional
and
individual
levels
of
key
players
on
DRM/CRM
in
the
GMMA.
By
addressing
policy
development,
planning
and
programming
requirements
of
the
concerned
institutions
and
improving
the
competencies
on
DRM/CRM
of
the
concerned
individuals,
including
community
leaders,
the
project
was
expected
to
put
in
place
a
GMMA
wide
institutional
network
which
is
able
to
address
the
risks
posed
by
the
multi-‐hazards,
including
those
from
climate
change.
The
project
was
designed
to
respond
to
national
priorities
as
enunciated
in
various
development
policy
documents.
Among
these
key
policy
documents
are:
(a)
Medium-‐Term
Philippine
Development
Plan
(MTPDP):
2004-‐2010,
which
outlines
the
importance
of
emergency
assistance
and
disaster
mitigation
projects
and
a
Geohazard
Assessment
Program
to
reduce
risks
and
agriculture;
(b)
National
Framework
for
Physical
Planning
(NFPP):
2000-‐2030,
which
declares
that
permanent
hazard
areas
should
not
be
used
for
any
development
activities;
(c)
Philippine
Strategic
National
Action
Plan
(SNAP)
on
DRR,
which
prioritizes
the
identification,
assessment
and
monitoring
of
disaster
risks,
and
the
enhancement
of
early
warning,
as
well
as
the
integration
of
DRM
and
CRM
in
development
planning
and
decision-‐making
processes;
and
(d)
the
Philippine
Disaster
Risk
Reduction
and
Management
Act
and
the
Climate
Change
Act,
which
highlight
the
need
to
harmonize
DRM
and
Climate
Change
Adaptation
(CCA)
and
mainstream
these
in
development
sectors.
The
project
was
also
aligned
to
the
priorities
of
its
funding
institutions
–
the
then
Australian
Agency
for
International
Development
(AusAID),
and
the
United
Nations
Development
Programme
(UNDP).
Specifically,
the
project
was
meant
to
help
AusAID
achieve
specific
provisions
of
the
Philippines-‐Australia
Development
Assistance
Strategy
(DAS)
for
2007-‐2011.
One
of
the
key
risks
identified
in
the
implementation
of
the
Strategy
was
“natural
disasters
and
shocks
that
set
back
development
prospects,
change
development
priorities,
and
interrupt
implementation
of
aid
programs.”
The
project
was
also
envisioned
to
contribute
to
the
relevant
outcome(s)
identified
in
the
United
Nations
Development
Assistance
Framework
(UNDAF)
and
the
UNDP
Country
Programme
Action
Plan
(CPAP)
by
contributing
to
reduced
vulnerabilities
of
affected
population
and
sectors
through
enhanced
regional
(GMMA)
and
national
capacities
on
DRM/CRM.
It
was
also
intended
to
help
achieve
27
the
country’s
commitments
to
the
Millennium
Development
Goal
(MDG)
on
the
empowerment
of
women
by
ensuring
the
incorporation
of
gender
perspectives
in
its
various
outputs
and
activities.
With
this
as
an
intention,
the
project
is
expected
to
give
emphasis
on
gender
sensitive
concerns
especially
in
the
capacity
building
and
protection
of
women,
including
the
children
and
the
elderly,
in
the
event
of
disasters
and
other
emergency
situation.
The
alignment
of
the
project’s
outcome
with
the
priority
thrust
of
AusAID
(now
DFAT)
and
the
UNDP
could
be
best
seen
in
Figure
2.
Figure
2.
Alignment
of
GMMA
READY
Project
with
AusAID
(DFAT)
and
UNDP
The
project
intended
outcome
“Increased
institutional
capacities
of
key
local
and
national
risk
management
actors
towards
a
disaster
and
climate
resilient
GMMA”
is
fully
and
wholly
considered
in
the
design
of
the
project
particularly
in
the
identification
of
its
five
(5)
major
expected
outputs.
The
achievement
of
the
outcome,
which
is
not
too
far-‐fetched,
would
in
turn
lead
to
the
attainment
of
project
impacts
aligned
to
the
results
that
UNDP
envisions
for
the
improvement
of
the
country’s
management
and
development
of
its
environment
and
natural
resources.
As
further
illustrated
in
Figure
3,
the
immediate
project
impacts
would
lead
to
further
long-‐term
impacts
on
better
management
of
resources,
promotion
on
the
development
and
use
of
sustainable
energy
sources,
and
resiliency
in
dealing
with
environment
emergencies.
28
Figure
3.
Results
Framework
of
the
GMMA
READY
Project
It
can
be
observed
however
that
the
long-‐term
impacts
of
the
project
would
extend
beyond
better
management
of
the
country’s
environment
and
natural
resources.
Long-‐term
impacts
would
include
physical,
economic
and
social
security
which
would
in
turn
lay
a
solid,
strong
and
robust
foundation
for
sustainable
growth
and
development.
The
design
of
the
project
likewise
clearly
set
indicators
in
measuring
and
ensuring
that
the
intended
or
expected
outputs
are
attained
at
the
end
of
the
project.
Specific
project
activities
revolved
around
these
indicators
for
the
whole
duration
of
project
implementation.
The
indicators
are
simple
and
clear;
hence,
they
adequately
serve
as
guide
and
source
of
direction
in
project
management,
monitoring
and
evaluation
of
project
achievements.
Table
3
presents
the
list
of
indicators
per
intended
or
expected
output
of
the
project.
29
Table
3.
Project
Output
Indicators
Intended
Outputs
Indicators
Output
1:
Disaster
and
climate
risk
Number
of
hazard/risk
maps
produced
for
vulnerabilities
assessed
GMMA.
Number
of
vulnerability
and
adaptation
assessment
reports
produced
for
GMMA.
Output
2:
Priority
disaster
and
climate
Percent
increase
over
baseline
in
number
of
risk
mitigation
actions
for
GMMA
CBEWS
established
and
operational
in
priority
developed
and
implemented
sites;
percent
increase
over
baseline
in
preparedness
capacity
of
GMMA
by
end
of
project
Output
3:
Competencies
of
GMMA
LGUs
Percent
increase
over
baseline
competency
of
and
critical
partners
(NGAs,
academe,
LGUs
and
partners
(including
sectoral
and
risk
professional
associations)
to
agencies)
on
mainstreaming
DRM/CRM
into
mainstream
DRM/CRM
into
local
GMMA
planning
and
regulatory
processes)
planning
and
regulatory
processes
enhanced
Output
4:
DRM/CRM
mainstreaming
Percent
increase
over
baseline
of
plans
and
demonstrated
in
local
land
use
and
regulatory
processes
exhibiting
risk
based
development
plans
and
regulatory
strategies
processes
of
Metro
Manila
and
other
selected
GMMA
LGUs
Output 5: D/CRM Knowledge Integrated disaster/ climate risk management
Management System and/or Community and CoP in place and operational by end of
of Practice established project
Further scrutiny of the project outputs and output indicators suggests
that the intended or expected outputs are not to be seen as individual, separate and
independent outputs; neither could they be treated as linear in sequence. Rather,
they are interrelated and interdependent outputs. Output 1, however, serves as the
trigger or the entry for the successful achievement of other outputs of the project.
While the linkages of one output to the others are clear and logical, there
are specific items or outputs or milestones that could be added to further clarify
their connections and relationships. In the implementation of the project, these
links were made apparent and could be highlighted as achievements or immediate
outcomes of the project.
30
Given
the
foregoing
narratives
on
the
intended
outcome,
expected
outputs
and
output
indicators
as
well
as
the
linkages
and
interrelationships
of
the
different
outputs
plus
other
significant
achievements
of
the
project,
the
Theory
of
Change
(or
Change
Logic)
for
the
project
is
thus
presented
in
Figure
4.
Figure
4.
The
Theory
of
Change
for
the
GMMA
READY
Project
It
should
be
noted
that
there
are
six
(6)
items
added
to
the
Theory
of
Change,
three
(3)
were
distinctly
part
of
the
design
and
they
also
have
indicators
of
achievement
(as
can
be
seen
later
in
the
report),
namely:
(a)
assessment
reports
and
results
development
and
formulated;
(b)
mainstreaming
guide
formulated;
and
(c)
capacity
enhancement
programs
conducted.
The
three
(3)
others,
to
wit:
(a)
DRRMCs
strengthened;
(b)
capacity
of
Local
Planning
and
Development
Offices
(LPDO)
enhanced
(which
goes
beyond
the
formulation
of
CLUP
and
ZO);
and
(c)
guide
for
enforcement
and
regulation
formulated,
may
need
to
have
indictors
to
ensure
that
the
connection
to
the
intended
outcome
are
fully
achieved.
Note
further
that
this
suggestion
is
only
intended
to
clarify
the
Theory
of
Change
and
the
overall
31
design
of
the
project
and
it
is
not
also
meant
that
this
has
to
be
done
before
the
project
could
be
closed.
Possible
indicators
for
the
three
(3)
items
are
presented
in
Table
4.
Table
4.
Other
Outputs
and
Results
of
the
Project
Outputs/Results
Verifiable
Indicators
DRRMCs
strengthened
• Work
plans
formulated
• LDRRM
Fund
allocated
• Resources
for
the
operation
of
the
DRRMC
are
made
available
Capacity
of
Local
Planning
and
• Facilities
and
equipment
are
made
available
Development
Offices
enhanced
• Level
of
technical
competency
enhanced
• Analytical
and
technical
writing
skills
developed
Guide
for
enforcement
and
• Processes
in
securing
zoning
and
locational
regulation
formulated
clearance
streamlined
and
aligned
to
DRM/CRM
criteria
• Considerations
for
the
issuance
of
building
permit
and
certificate
of
occupancy
are
aligned
with
DRM/CRM
criteria
• Property
assessment
and
valuation
is
aligned
with
DRM/CRM
criteria
b. Assumptions
and
Risks
The
implementation
of
the
project,
particularly
the
successful
conduct
and
phasing
of
activities
carefully
considered
critical
assumptions
and
risks.
These
are
presented
in
Table
5.
Note
that
these
assumptions
and
risks
are
not
preconditions
neither
the
input
requirements
for
the
achievement
of
intended
outputs;
rather,
they
are
factors
beyond
the
control
of
the
project
which
could
either
facilitate
or
hinder,
respectively,
the
delivery
of
the
intended
outputs.
32
Table
5.
Critical
Assumptions
and
Risks
for
the
Project
Output/Component
Assumptions
in
the
Risks
that
Hinder
the
Achievement
of
Outputs
Achievement
of
Outputs
Output
1:
Disaster
and
• Information
and
data
from
• Other
competing
priorities
climate
risk
vulnerabilities
previous
related
projects
of
risk
assessment
agencies
assessed
are
made
available
• Expertise
and
capacities
of
risk
assessment
agencies
are
the
same
as
the
baseline
period
Output
2:
Priority
disaster
• Materials
for
the
• Technical
and
technological
and
climate
risk
mitigation
manufacturing
of
glitches
actions
for
GMMA
equipment
and
facilities
are
developed
and
locally
available,
adequate
implemented
and
accessible
• Local
expertise
is
available
Output
3:
Competencies
of
• Engagement
of
local
• Conflicting
priorities
of
GMMA
LGUs
and
critical
governments
remains
the
GMMA
LGUs
and
critical
partners
(NGAs,
academe,
same
despite
possible
partners
professional
associations)
change
of
leadership
at
the
• Other
priorities
of
local
to
mainstream
DRM/CRM
local
level
(2013
local
chief
executives
into
local
planning
and
elections)
• Absence
or
limited
material
regulatory
processes
• Counterpart
funds
and
and
manpower
support
enhanced
resources
from
LGUs
and
from
LGUs
and
critical
Output
4:
DRM/CRM
critical
partners
are
partners
mainstreaming
available,
adequate
and
demonstrated
in
local
land
accessible
use
and
development
plans
• Technical
personnel
and
and
regulatory
processes
of
staff
of
LGUs
are
available
Metro
Manila
and
other
for
training
and
other
selected
GMMA
LGUs
capacity
enhancement
programs
Output
5:
D/CRM
• Infrastructure
support
is
• Obsolete
information
of
Knowledge
Management
available
agencies
System
and/or
Community
• Related
knowledge
• Technical
and
technological
of
Practice
established
products
at
the
various
glitches
agencies
are
accessible
and
are
shared
c. Lessons
from
other
relevant
projects
(e.g.,
same
focal
area)
incorporated
into
project
design
The
project
was
developed
taking
off
from
various
initiatives
introduced
in
the
past.
A
big
chunk
of
the
project
was
derived
from
the
outputs
CSCAND
33
agencies,
individually
and
as
a
group,
most
particularly
in
hazard
mapping
which
was
done
in
pieces
through
the
years.
As
early
as
the
80s,
PHIVOLCS
started
to
produce
hazard
maps.
In
the
90s,
NAMRIA
initiated
the
use
of
remote
sensing
technology
(the
use
of
sensors,
typically
from
aircrafts
or
satellites,
in
obtaining
information
about
areas
from
a
distance)
in
making
topographic
maps
which
PAGASA
then
used
for
hazard
mapping.
Hazards
were
determined
by
the
features
or
key
elements
present
in
an
area.
Hazard
maps
were
produced
in
low-‐resolution
covering
only
a
few
areas.
In
early
2000s,
PHIVOLCS
developed
the
Rapid
Earthquake
Damage
Assessment
System
(REDAS)
through
a
Grant-‐in-‐Aid
(GIA)
from
its
mother
agency,
the
Department
of
Science
and
Technology
(DOST).
The
REDAS
is
a
simulation
software
that
has
the
capability
to
simulate
earthquake
hazard
scenarios
for
any
given
earthquake.
It
allows
users
to
generate
hazard
(ground
shaking,
liquefaction,
earthquake-‐induced
landslide
and
tsunami)
and
risk
maps
immediately
after
a
quake.
Disaster
managers,
local
planners,
and
policy
makers,
who
need
to
include
earthquake
hazards
in
local
development
plans,
are
the
target
users
of
the
software.
The
four
typhoons
that
flooded
parts
of
the
Philippines
especially
Infanta,
Real
and
General
Nakar
in
Quezon,
killing
at
least
1,000
people
in
the
later
part
of
2004
led
the
formation
of
the
CSCAND
agencies
which
immediately
convened
to
help
the
flooded
areas.
The
CSCAND
agencies
started
the
REINA
project.
One
of
the
components
of
the
project
was
hazard
mapping
of
flood,
storm
surge,
landslide,
and
earthquake
in
Quezon
province.
From
the
REINA
Project,
hazard
mapping
scaled
up
to
27
more
provinces,
those
determined
to
be
high-‐risk
were
included
as
targets
of
what
became
known
as
the
READY
Project.
The
provinces
covered
by
READY
included:
Zamboanga
Sibugay,
Rizal,
Zamboanga
del
Sur,
Ilocos
Norte,
Isabela,
Bohol,
Aurora,
Cavite,
Pampanga,
Laguna,
Northern
Samar,
Eastern
Samar,
Zambales,
Antique,
Iloilo,
Ilocos
Sur,
Benguet,
Catanduanes,
Abra,
Quirino,
Agusan
del
Sur,
Nueva
Vizcaya,
Cagayan,
Southern
Leyte,
Leyte,
Surigao
del
Sur
and
Surigao
del
Norte.
The
project
produced
high-‐resolution
(scales
of
1:50,000
and
1:10,000)
provincial,
city
and
municipal
level
maps
through
air
photos
from
radars
such
as
the
European
Remote
Sensing
satellites
and
Satellite
Pour
l’Observation
de
la
Terre
(SPOT)
or
Earth
observation
satellite.
The
project,
which
was
funded
by
the
UNDP
and
the
AusAID,
determined
the
depth
of
different
hazards
present
in
an
area.
In
the
same
period
(the
first
decade
of
the
21st
century),
the
MGB
also
initiated
its
National
Geohazard
Assessment
and
Mapping
Program
to
prevent
disasters
such
as
the
Cherry
Hills
subdivision
landslide
in
1999.
34
From
indicative
maps
at
a
scale
of
1:250,000
that
determined
which
areas
should
be
prioritized
for
geohazard
mapping
with
the
help
of
Geographic
Information
Systems
(GIS)
technology,
MGB
created
barangay
level
maps
nationwide
at
a
scale
of
1:50,000
showing
the
areas
that
are
susceptible
to
landslide
and
flood.
The
maps
produced
were
given
to
the
local
government
units
for
planning
references
and
were
integrated
with
the
READY
Project.
Also
in
the
same
period,
PHIVOLCS
conducted
tsunami
hazards
assessment
nationwide,
funded
by
the
AusAID
and
released
tsunami
hazard
maps.
PHIVOLCS
also
started
providing
REDAS
training
and
software
to
different
provinces,
cities,
municipalities
and
government
institutions
to
mainstream
disaster
risk
reduction
in
development
plans.
The
READY
hazard
maps
were
also
incorporated
into
the
REDAS
software.
Given
these
initiatives,
the
CSCAND
agencies
started
the
Greater
Metro
Manila
Risk
Assessment
Project
Risk
Analysis
Project
(GMMA-‐RAP),
a
3-‐year
project
funded
by
the
AusAID
through
the
UNDP.
This
project
allowed
agencies
to
create
maps
that
determine
the
depth
of
hazards
present
in
an
area,
the
extent
and
the
frequency
of
hazards,
and
also
the
worst
case
scenario
through
modeling.
Light
Detection
and
Ranging
(LiDAR)
technology,
which
captures
high-‐resolution
images
on
the
ground
is
used
in
data-‐gathering.
GMMA-‐RAP
focuses
on
Metro
Manila
only,
but
also
includes
portions
of
Bulacan,
Rizal,
Cavite
and
Laguna.
Responding
to
Aquino’s
instructions,
the
DOST
launched
the
Nationwide
Operational
Assessment
of
Hazards
(Project
NOAH)
on
July
6,
2012.
The
project
was
designed
to
help
solve
existing
problems
caused
by
ill-‐informed
decision
during
disasters.
The
project
involves
detailed
barangay
level
landslide,
flood,
and
storm
surge
inundation
maps
that
identify
safe
areas
for
people
through
the
use
of
LiDAR
and
Interferometric
Synthetic
Aperture
Radar
(IfSAR)
that
capture
high-‐resolution
topographies.
It
is
through
these
gains
and
achievements
in
the
past
that
served
as
the
foundation
for
the
design
and
implementation
of
the
GMMA
READY
Project.
d. Planned
stakeholder
participation
The
project
was
designed
for
implementation
through
collaboration
of
national
government
agencies,
risk
assessment
agencies
or
the
CSCAND
agencies,
local
government
units,
and
other
professional
and
academic
institutions.
The
OCD/NDRRMC
provided
the
lead,
with
the
PMD
of
the
OCD
as
the
focal
unit
for
coordination
and
operation.
35
Critical
to
the
implementation
of
the
project
was
the
involvement
of
other
CSCAND
agencies.
Without
the
CSCAND
agencies,
the
generation
of
outputs
would
have
not
been
made
possible.
The
CSCAND
agencies
were,
however,
very
grateful
to
the
project
for
providing
opportunity
for
them
to
not
only
contribute
to
the
success
of
the
project
but
also
to
enhance
their
technical
capacities
and
allow
them
to
do
more
than
what
they
could
normally
accomplish
without
the
project.
The
outputs
of
the
CSCAND
agencies
were
used
in
mainstreaming
activities
as
well
as
in
enhancing
competencies
of
selected
agencies,
other
critical
partners
and
local
government
units
–
from
the
province
to
the
municipal
or
city
level
and
down
to
the
community
and
barangay
level.
Figure
5
presents
an
illustration
of
the
interaction
of
the
various
project
partners.
Figure
5.
Arrangement
of
Key
Project
Partners
e. UNDP
comparative
advantage
Disaster
reduction
has
been
a
key
component
of
UNDP
efforts
in
crisis
prevention
and
recovery.
UNDP
first
allocated
core
resources
for
disaster
preparedness
in
1989,
with
an
approved
policy
framework
aimed
‘to
stimulate
the
interest
and
actions
needed
to
create
comprehensive
disaster
preparedness
plans,
36
strategies
and
structures
and
to
promote
disaster
mitigation
activities
within
the
context
of
development
planning
and
implementation’.
The
United
Nations
General
Assembly
has
transferred
to
UNDP,
the
responsibilities
of
the
Emergency
Relief
Coordinator
for
operational
activities
concerning
natural
disaster
mitigation,
prevention
and
preparedness.
Furthermore,
the
UNDP
Bureau
for
Crisis
Prevention
and
Recovery
(BCPR)
has
made
considerable
progress
in
developing
an
implementation
framework
that
adds
value
to
on-‐going
activities
in
disaster
reduction.
While
much
has
been
achieved,
much
remains
to
be
done
if
disaster
loss
is
not
to
jeopardize
the
achievement
of
the
Millennium
Development
Goals
(MDGs).
The
linkages
between
development
and
disaster
risk
are
not
difficult
to
visualize.
Any
development
activity
has
the
potential
to
either
increase
or
reduce
disaster
risk.
Disaster
risk
is
not
inevitable,
but
on
the
contrary
can
be
managed
and
reduced
through
appropriate
development
actions.
The
UNDP
Environment
Portfolio
has
been,
for
years,
supporting
disaster
reduction
initiatives
of
the
Government
of
the
Philippines
at
the
national
and
local
levels.
UNDP
has
been
working
with
PHIVOLCS,
MGB,
PAGASA
and
selected
local
government
units
in
the
following
areas:
(a)
multi-‐hazard
mapping;
(b)
community-‐
based
disaster
preparedness;
(c)
community-‐based
early
warning
system.
UNDP
has,
likewise,
produced
film,
TV
and
radio
plugs
on
earthquakes
and
floods
in
partnership
with
the
Philippine
Information
Agency
(PIA).
In
the
arena
of
disaster
response,
UNDP
has
been
working
closely
with
the
UN
Office
for
the
Coordination
of
Humanitarian
Affairs
(UN
OCHA)
to
immediately
respond
to
communities
affected
by
natural
disasters
(especially
typhoons
and
rain-‐induced
landslides
in
the
past
two
years).
As
an
example,
the
UNDP
with
funds
from
the
OCHA
developed
the
project
entitled
“Strengthening
the
Disaster
Preparedness
Capacities
of
the
Municipalities
of
Real,
Infanta
and
[General]
Nakar”
or
REINA
Project.
The
REINA
project,
started
March
2005,
was
designed
to
prepare
the
community
for
disaster
in
different
aspects.
Specifically,
UNDP
assisted
the
government
in,
among
others,
hazard
mapping
and
establishing
community
based
disaster
management
systems.
Through
the
project,
a
multi-‐agency
group
called
CSCAND,
a
subcommittee
of
the
then
National
Disaster
Coordinating
Council
(NDCC),
developed
the
hazard
maps.
It
is
the
first
time
that
the
three
agencies
–
PAGASA,
MGB
and
PHIVOLCS
–
worked
together
in
developing
hazard
maps.
UNDP
has
been
extensively
involved
in
other
related
projects
that
took
off
from
that
initiative.
37
f. Linkages
between
project
and
other
interventions
within
the
sector
The
project
worked
closely
with
and
complemented
other
related
initiatives
in
the
GMMA.
Overlaps
were
accordingly
avoided
and
duplications
were
adequately
addressed.
A
system
of
complementation
had
been
drawn
up
through
the
OCD
and
the
CSCAND
agencies
such
that
resources
for
the
project
and
other
related
initiatives
were
maximized.
Linkages
and
complementation
between
and
among
the
project
and
other
programs
and
existing
projects
could
be
seen
more
clearly
in
Table
6.
Table
6.
Linkages
and
Complementation
with
Other
Related
Programs
and
Initiatives
Other
Programs/Initiatives
Linkages
and
Complementation
1. Pilot urban reconstruction • Focused on Taguig City.
program of AusAID: • Activity alignment in the areas of risk analysis,
comprehensive land use planning and community-‐
based disaster risk management.
• Coordination and complementation were ensured
through the CSCAND agencies.
• Complementation was in the area of enhancing the
• Risk Analysis Project
knowledge and skills of NDRRMDC and CSCAND
agencies on earthquake, flood and tropical cyclone
severe wind risk analysis.
• Outputs of the RAP were used in the GMMA READY
Project especially the risk and vulnerability
assessments.
• Components 3 and 4 drew heavily on the
• Comprehensive Land Use
methodology and results of the AusAID-‐NEDA-‐
Planning
UNDP Project “Integrating DRR-‐CCA into Local
Development Planning and Decision-‐Making
Processes.”
• Drawing from the lessons in Taguig City, the
Guidebook was further enhanced in the project
with the formulation of Guidebook for Sustainable
Comprehensive Land Use Planning for HLURB.
• Taking off from the activity implemented by the
• Community-‐based disaster
Philippine Red Cross in Taguig City, the project
risk management
tackled the broader need of the government and
Metro Manila on early warning, and supported
GMMA LGUs in preparing contingency plans.
2. Australia-‐Philippines • Sharing of information and capacities from
Australian agencies in the areas of natural hazard
38
Technical
Linkages
Program,
risk
analysis,
cyclone
forecasting,
vulnerability
and
Enhancing
Risk
Analysis
assessment
and
climate
change
scenario
Capacities
of
Philippine
development.
Technical
Agencies
• Philippine
technical
agencies
shared
information
on
innovations
and
lessons
from
the
implementation
of
key
DRM
and
climate
change
initiatives,
as
well
as
experiences
in
forging
innovative
partnership.
3. Canadian International • Capacities developed through the CIDA-‐UNDP
Development Assistance project were applied in the GMMA READY project
(CIDA)-‐UNDP Project: particularly in the areas of capacity assessment on
community-‐based vulnerability assessment,
Building Community
Resilience and Strengthening development and conduct of customized training
Local Government Capacities modules, and collection of data for hazard
mapping.
for Recovery and Disaster
Risk Management
4. World Bank’s Master Plan on • Participation of the project in discussions and in
Flood Control Mitigation for drawing up proposals and recommendations.
Metro Manila • Results of the Plan were significantly considered in
the generation of outputs and in the
implementation of activities of the project.
5. KOIKA-‐supported early • Sharing of information on the establishment of
warning system automatic weather stations, water level gauging
stations, rainfall and flood forecasting system and
control, warning posts along Marikina River, and
development of maintenance program for facilities.
g. Management Arrangement
Project implementation was a collaborative endeavor between and
among a number of national and sub-‐national agencies, local government units and
civil society organizations. The Implementing Agency with over-‐all responsibility
for the timely and cost-‐effective implementation of project activities is the OCD, on
behalf of the NDRRMC. The MMDA, the DOST through its PHIVOLCS and PAGASA,
the DENR through its MGB and NAMRIA, as well as the CCC, HLURB and NEDA acted
as Responsible Partners. The DILG, the Leagues of Cities and Municipalities, the
DENR-‐Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) and the Laguna Lake
Development Authority (LLDA) were also engaged in specific activities on issues
under their jurisdiction.
The organizational structure is depicted in Figure 6.
39
Figure
6.
Project
Organizational
Structure
The
Project
Board,
previously
referred
as
the
Project
Executive
Group
or
the
Project
Steering
Committee
or
the
Tripartite
Committee,
was
responsible
for
making
management
decisions
for
the
project
by
consensus,
when
guidance
is
required
by
the
Project
Manager.
This
group
was
consulted
by
the
Project
Manager
throughout
the
implementation
of
the
project
especially
for
issues
and
challenges
needing
decisions
and
directions.
As
designed,
the
Project
Board
convened
at
least
twice
a
year
with
one
meeting
dedicated
for
an
Annual
Review
to
review
the
project
performance
and
approve
project
annual
plans
and
authorize
any
major
deviation
from
project
approved
plans
–
annual
plans
or
otherwise.
The
Project
Board
served
as
the
authority
that
signs
off
the
completion
of
each
plan
or
work
plan.
It
also
performed
oversight
functions.
The
Project
Board
was
chaired
by
NDRRMC-‐OCD
and
co-‐
chaired
by
UNDP.
The
Project
Assurance
(PA)
was
performed
by
UNDP.
Its
main
role
supported
the
Project
Board
by
carrying
out
objective
and
independent
project
oversight
and
monitoring
functions,
and
ensuring
that
appropriate
project
management
milestones
are
managed
and
completed.
The
NDRRMC-‐OCD,
being
the
Implementing
Partner,
was
fully
responsible
and
accountable
for
managing
the
project,
achieving
each
component
outputs,
and
for
the
effective
use
and
disposition
of
project
resources.
The
40
NDRRMC-‐OCD,
through
the
Project
Management
Division
(PMD),
followed
effective
process
and
financial
management
practices,
as
mandated
by
the
UNDP.
The
Responsible
Partners
(RPs)
were
identified
based
on
an
assessment
of
their
technical,
financial,
managerial
and
administrative
capacities
that
will
be
–
and
actually
were
–
needed
for
the
project
by
the
Implementing
Partner
to
undertake
a
particular
component
or
activity
of
the
project.
While
the
RPs
were
made
responsible
in
delivering
component
outputs
and
in
managing
their
respective
activities,
the
IP,
through
the
PMD/PMO,
remained
fully
responsible
and
accountable
to
the
Project
Board
and
to
UNDP.
3.2
Project
Implementation
a. Adaptive
management
(changes
to
the
project
design
and
project
outputs
during
implementation)
Based
on
the
results
of
the
interview
and
focus
group
discussions
conduct,
it
was
reported
that
the
project
was
very
flexible
in
terms
of
phasing
and
timing
of
activities
without
compromising
the
delivery
of
the
five
(5)
expected
outputs.
Likewise,
the
responsible
partners
were
giving
enough
flexibility
and
liberty
to
identify
and
implement
critical
activities.
Throughout
the
duration
of
the
project,
responsible
partners
could
drop
activities
that
are
no
longer
necessary
even
if
they
were
initially
identified
in
the
annual
work
plan
or
they
could
adopt
new
activities
even
if
they
were
not
identified
in
the
annual
work
plan
provided
that
the
implementing
partner
was
duly
informed
and
that
approval
was
issued.
There
were
some
unavoidable
incidences
of
delays
in
the
implementation
of
activities
and
in
the
achievement
of
intended
results
and
specific
outputs
which
called
for
the
adjustment
of
work
plan
and
targets
as
well
as
the
adoption
of
catch-‐up
strategies.
At
the
end
of
the
project,
however,
it
was
noted
that
all
the
commitments
of
the
project
at
the
start
had
all
been
achieved.
Funds
allocated
to
responsible
partners
were
determined
based
on
their
requirements
for
the
generation
of
outputs
and
not
solely
dependent
on
the
requirements
for
the
conduct
of
activities.
According
to
the
interviewees
and
participants
to
the
interview
and
focus
group
discussions,
the
output-‐based
budgeting
for
the
project
could
be
considered
a
major
factor
for
the
success
of
the
project.
While
there
were
several
budget
realignments
done,
the
total
amount
allocated
for
each
of
the
expected
outputs
were
not
affected.
If
at
all,
they
were
very
minimal.
The
annual
work
planning
and
budgeting
exercises
and
regular
meetings
that
the
project’s
implementing
partner
conducted
were
venues
for
adjustments,
monitoring
of
project
performance
and
an
opportunity
for
the
issuance
of
direction
and
guidance
in
succeeding
periods
of
project
implementation.
In
these
sessions,
41
further
clarifications
on
project
details
and
specifications
were
made
which
enabled
all
partners
to
synchronize
and
align
their
activities
to
one
another.
Decisions
were
arrived
at
through
consensus
among
partners
or
through
agreement
between
two
(2)
concerned
partners.
Interviewees
reported
that
the
implementing
partner
has
ably
handled
conflicts
of
opinions
and
disagreements
among
partners
through
informal
conversations
and
dialogues.
Three
(3)
major
factors
that
contributed
in
effectively
managing
project
challenges
were
also
mentioned,
to
wit:
(a)
management
competency
of
OCD,
particularly
the
PMO,
in
dealing
with
problems;
(b)
PMO
served
as
project
coordinator
and
facilitator
rather
than
as
an
oversight
regulator;
and
(c)
PMO
was
very
pragmatic
in
coming
up
with
decisions,
solutions
and
interventions.
It
was
also
reported
that
PMO
regularly
visits
the
partners
for
informal
discussions
on
project
performance
at
agency
level,
for
problem-‐solving
and
trouble
shooting,
and
for
partnership-‐building.
It
was
mentioned
that
these
visits
were
effective
in
boosting
partners’
morale
as
well
as
in
fostering
camaraderie
and
teamwork.
b. Partnership
arrangements
(with
relevant
stakeholders
involved
in
the
country/region)
The
project
was
designed
to
involve
government
agencies,
local
government
units,
local
communities,
civil
society
organizations
and
the
academe
in
the
Greater
Metro
Manila
Area.
At
the
helm
of
the
project
is
the
OCD
serving
as
the
primary
implementing
agency.
Responsible
partner
agencies
are
clustered
according
to
the
five
(5)
intended
outputs
of
the
project.
Table
7
presents
the
clustering
of
the
various
project
partners.
Table
7.
Engagement
of
Partners
in
the
Delivery
of
Project
Outputs
Output/Component
Partners
Output
1:
Disaster
and
climate
risk
OCD,
CSCAND
Agencies
(NAMRIA,
MGB,
PAGASA,
vulnerabilities
assessed
PHIVOLCS)
Output
2:
Priority
disaster
and
climate
OCD,
MGB,
PAGASA,
PHIVOLCS,
Provincial
risk
mitigation
actions
for
GMMA
governments
of
Bulacan,
Laguna,
Cavite
and
Rizal,
developed
and
implemented
selected
municipalities
and
barangays
in
the
provinces
of
Bulacan,
Laguna,
Cavite
and
Rizal.
42
Output
3:
Competencies
of
GMMA
LGUs
OCD,
CSCAND
agencies,
CCC,
selected
academic
and
critical
partners
(NGAs,
academe,
institutions
professional
associations)
to
mainstream
DRM/CRM
into
local
planning
and
regulatory
processes
enhanced
Output
4:
DRM/CRM
mainstreaming
HLURB,
MMDA,
selected
local
government
units
demonstrated
in
local
land
use
and
of
Metro
Manila,
CSCAND
agencies
development
plans
and
regulatory
processes
of
Metro
Manila
and
other
selected
GMMA
LGUs
Output 5: D/CRM Knowledge CCC, implementing agency and responsible
Management System and/or partners, selected academic institutions.
Community of Practice established
Complementing Table 7 is Figure 7 that illustrates the flow of command
from the implementing partners down to the responsible partners and down further
to selected LGU partners of the projects and the pilot barangays and communities. It
should be noted that although the illustration looks very hierarchical, project
operation during implementation was quite seamless. The illustration, thus, only
presents the functional relationships among the different players or stakeholders in
the project. It could be seen from the figure that OCD is at the helm, which is
expected to provide leadership, coordination and direction to all other partners of
the project. It worked closely with other CSCAND agencies for technical inputs as
well as outputs, which both served as the main engine for project start-‐up and
follow through activities.
It can be seen in the figure that the project extensively involved pilot
barangays and communities. This was meant as a way of mainstreaming vulnerable
groups on efforts that are intended to prepare and help them in times of
emergencies and disasters. Their knowledge and awareness of existing local
conditions and situations also served as valuable inputs in coming up with the
various technical outputs of the project. Likewise, it was also through the local
communities where application of documented best practices and technical
knowhow would be validated and given more credence.
43
Figure
7.
Engagement
of
Project
Partners
and
Stakeholders
c. Feedback
from
M&E
activities
used
for
adaptive
management
The
project
has
a
monitoring
and
evaluation
plan
which
was
intended
to
track
the
performance,
progress
and
status
of
the
project
at
various
periods.
Target
activities
and
outputs
were
set
each
year
with
corresponding
indicative
budget
requirements.
The
conduct
of
M&E
was
done
through:
(a)
the
submission
of
progress
reports
by
the
responsible
partners;
(b)
site
or
field
visits;
(c)
regular
meetings;
and
(d)
annual
work
planning
and
budgeting.
Results
of
M&E
activities
were
used
to
adjust
targets
and
as
the
basis
for
the
releases
of
funds
to
responsible
partners.
Adjustments
to
targets
were
made
and
arrived
at
through
a
process
of
continuous
dialogue
and
consultation
between
the
implementing
partner
and
concerned
responsible
partners.
As
mentioned
by
the
respondents,
this
mode
of
transaction
between
the
lead,
on
one
hand,
and
the
participating
agencies,
on
the
other,
had
proved
to
be
most
effective
and
efficient.
It
promoted
trust
and
confidence
from
both
parties.
44
To
resolve
delays
in
implementation,
the
implementing
partner
had
resorted
to
various
modes
and
approaches:
(a)
problem-‐solving
and
trouble
shooting;
(b)
gap-‐filling;
and
(c)
catch-‐up
plan.
While
these
functions
are
traditional
considered
part
of
the
general
concept
of
management,
recent
literature
indicates
that
these
are
some
of
the
evolving
approaches
in
M&E
wherein
problems
in
implementation
are
addressed
and
solutions
are
promptly
adopted.
Rather
than
as
a
one-‐shot
regular
undertaking,
the
implementing
partner
undertook
M&E
on
a
continuous
basis,
not
as
a
deliberate
activity
but
as
a
management
tool
for
the
project
to
achieve
greater
results
and
to
avoid
implementation
slippages.
d. Project
Finance
The
function
of
financial
management
for
the
project
was
performed
by
the
OCD
through
its
regular
financial
and
accounting
system.
It
was
facilitated
by
the
PMD
or
PMO
for
the
project.
As
reported
during
the
interview,
there
had
been
no
major
problems
related
to
the
funding
requirements
of
responsible
partners.
They
said,
in
particular,
that
their
funding
requests
were
acted
promptly
by
OCD.
For
liquidation
and
reimbursements,
they
further
cited
and
commended
the
facilitative
and
responsive
role
of
the
PMO,
without
compromising
existing
rules
and
regulations
in
government
financial
and
accounting
systems.
The
relationship
between
UNDP
and
OCD/PMO
in
terms
of
fund
management
was
described
as
smooth
and
non-‐problematic.
UNDP
was
very
supportive
and
facilitative
on
the
needs
and
requirements
of
the
project.
In
this
project,
OCD/PMO
had
proved
its
unquestionable
reliability
in
handling
funds
for
development
projects.
As
of
the
end
of
May
2016,
it
was
reported
that
the
total
fund
utilization
rate
of
the
project
was
98.84%
with
a
total
amount
of
USD
29,946.14
unexpended
balance
out
of
the
total
USD
2,588,448.91
allocated
to
the
project.
Table
8
presents
the
financial
status
of
the
project.
45
Table
8.
Financial
Status
of
the
Project,
as
of
end
of
May
2016
(in
USD)
Fund
Budget
Financial
Financial
Output
Utilization
(ProDoc)
Target
Delivery
Rate
Output
1:
Disaster
and
climate
risk
520,000.00
1,527,810.63
1,497,864.48
98.04%
vulnerabilities
assessed
Output 2: Priority disaster
and climate risk
mitigation actions for 600,000.00 415,029.36 415,029.36 100%
GMMA developed and
implemented
Output 3: Competencies
of GMMA LGUs and
critical partners (NGAs,
academe, professional
associations) to 400,000.00 190,576.20 190,576.20 100%
mainstream DRM/CRM
into local planning and
regulatory processes
enhanced
Output 4: DRM/CRM
mainstreaming
demonstrated in local
land use and development
200,000.00 284,966.96 284,966.96 100%
plans and regulatory
processes of Metro Manila
and other selected GMMA
LGUs
Output 5: D/CRM
Knowledge Management
System and/or 300,000.00 170,065.77 170,065.77 100%
Community of Practice
established
Total 2,020,000.00 2,588,448.91 2,558,502.77 98.84%
e. Design at entry and implementation
The project required the generation of distinct yet interrelated outputs.
The process could be described as iterative and dynamic, not necessarily and
absolutely sequential. However, activities were phased according to their
46
dependencies
such
that
requisite
activities
were
put
forward
first.
Based
on
the
design
and
the
actual
implementation,
the
sequencing
of
activities
was
done
for
the
whole
project
first,
then
for
the
specific
output
groups
or
components
second.
It
was
apparent
from
the
annual
work
plans
that
targeting
and
timing
of
activities
was
done
in
the
most
practical
and
operational
sense.
Figure
8
presents
the
interrelatedness
of
the
different
components
of
the
project.
The
conduct
of
assessment
of
disaster
and
climate
risk
vulnerabilities
was,
however,
deemed
to
be
the
priority
to
start
the
whole
project.
From
this,
the
other
components
of
the
project
eventually
followed.
It
should
be
noted
that
component
5
should
and
must
link
all
the
different
components
of
the
project
and
not
to
be
considered
as
their
by-‐product.
Viewed
as
a
continuous
effort,
the
different
components
get
and
provide
information
into
component
5
through
the
Community
of
Practice.
Figure
8.
Entry
and
Implementation
Design
Interviewees
mentioned
that
the
design
and
objectives
of
the
project
were
very
clear
from
the
start,
and
this
contributed
to
the
success
of
the
project
during
implementation.
Some
LGUs
in
Metro
Manila,
however,
mentioned
that
the
project
was
unclear
at
the
start
simply
because
it
a
new
thing,
a
new
one;
something
that
they
were
not
used
to
or
not
familiar
with.
They
claimed,
however,
that
they
eventually
got
the
idea
what
the
project
was
all
about
through
their
constant
participation
and
involvement
in
project
activities,
particularly
the
trainings,
seminars,
workshops
and
writeshops.
They
also
shared
that,
as
the
project
47
progressed,
they
appreciated
the
intentions,
the
activities,
the
outputs
generated
by
the
project,
and
the
benefits
that
their
offices
or
agencies
were
deriving
from
the
project.
f. UNDP
and
Implementing
Partner
implementation/execution,
coordination,
and
operational
issues
There
were
no
issues
raised
on
either
UNDP
or
the
implementing
partner
or
both
on
any
aspect
of
the
project.
Responsible
partners,
however,
shared
issues
that
they
encountered
and
affected
their
involvement
as
well
as
the
performance
of
their
offices
in
the
project.
These
include
the
following:
(i) Reluctance
of
some
local
government
officials
to
participate
in
the
project.
Some
technical
representatives
of
LGUs
in
Metro
Manila
said
that
they
felt
the
reluctance
of
and
low
level
of
appreciation
and
support
from
their
superiors,
and
this
had
affected
their
performance
in
the
project,
such
as
the
delivery
of
outputs
and
participation
in
activities.
(ii) Competing
priorities
and
conflicting
schedules
from
their
offices
vis-‐a-‐vis
the
activities
of
the
project.
Some
representatives
from
responsible
partners
mentioned
that
they
were
unable
to
participate
in
some
major
activities
of
the
project
because
of
their
workload
in
their
respective
offices.
While
they
were
able
to
send
their
alternates
when
they
were
not
available,
they
found
it
difficult
to
ensure
continuity;
hence,
such
affected
their
overall
performance
in
the
project.
(iii) Limited
or
absence
of
regular
plantilla
positions
for
DRRM
offices.
Some
representatives
raised
their
concern
that
employees
trained
do
not
have
security
of
tenure;
hence,
they
could
go
anytime.
This
might
affect
the
sustainability
of
the
project.
(iv) No
additional
incentives
for
personnel.
Most
employees
trained
at
the
local
level
are
on
temporary
or
casual
employment
status;
some
were
hired
on
a
job
order
basis.
As
such,
they
do
not
have
additional
incentives
which
might
eventually
and
adversely
affect
their
level
of
commitment.
(v) Delays
due
to
changes
of
leadership
right
after
the
local
elections
in
2013.
Some
activities
were
held
in
abeyance
because
the
change
in
leadership.
Concerned
LGUs
had
to
orient/re-‐orient
48
their
new
set
of
officials
about
the
project,
and
sought
their
approval
for
continued
participation
of
their
offices
to
the
project.
(vi) Shifting
assignments
of
staff.
Some
offices
encountered
changing
their
representatives
to
attend
project’s
activities.
Relatedly,
they
also
had
to
cope
with
delays
brought
about
by
re-‐training
of
new
staff
to
take
over
vacated
posts
of
re-‐assigned
staff
previously
working
for
the
project.
(vii) Limited
people
support.
Some
local
partners
reported
that
they
encountered
difficulty
in
mobilizing
the
participation
of
people
in
critical
activities
of
the
project
at
the
community
level.
It
was
further
reported
that
similar
situation
was
true
at
the
local
government
level
where
there
seemed
to
have
reluctance
and
indifference
on
the
part
of
some
departments
and
offices
to
participate
in
activities
of
the
project.
(viii) Low
political
will
of
some
government
agencies
and
local
government
units.
Some
representatives
shared
that
the
participation
of
some
government
agencies
and
local
government
units
was
a
mere
token
lacking
with
zest
and
passion.
It
was
also
observed
that
inputs
were
very
minimal
and
unexpectedly
inferior
compared
to
what
they
could
really
provide.
(ix) Reluctance
of
some
agencies
to
share
their
information.
Some
activities
were
delayed
and
outputs
not
delivered
for
some
components
of
the
project
because
concerned
agencies
were
not
willing
to
share
their
data
and
information.
(x) Limited
availability
of
funds
and
policies
that
can
support
the
project.
Some
representatives
raised
their
concern
that
their
respective
agencies
or
offices
could
not
provide
funds
for
their
activities.
In
terms
of
policies,
the
representatives
reported
the
lack
of
priority
thrusts
and
direction
related
to
DRM/CRM
from
their
agencies
and
offices
that
would
support
the
objectives
of
the
project.
Hence,
their
involvement
and
participation
in
the
project
became
limited.
(xi) Internal
inefficiencies
brought
about
by
stringent
office
protocols,
rules
and
regulation
especially
in
securing
travel
orders
and
approval
of
requests
for
specific
staff
to
attend
project
activities.
(xii) Writing
skills
of
LGUs
and
their
willingness
to
write
and
deliver
outputs.
Some
outputs
of
participant-‐LGUs
were
not
delivered
simply
because
of
the
inability
of
LGU
representatives
to
write
49
and
their
attitude
to
learn
and
produce
results,
in
particular,
the
formulation
of
CLUPs
and
Contingency
Plans.
(xiii) Indifference
of
some
communities
on
the
impact
of
the
project.
Some
communities
showed
reluctance
and
doubt
on
the
impact,
effectiveness
and
sustainability
of
the
project,
as
reported
by
respondents.
In
particular,
the
conduct
of
community
emergency
drills
was
not
perceived
as
relevant
in
actual
times
of
disasters.
(xiv) Unavailability
of
some
technical
experts
during
scheduled
training
and
workshops.
Some
trainings
and
workshops
had
to
be
postponed
and
rescheduled
because
of
the
unavailability
of
technical
experts
from
responsible
agencies.
Hence,
delivery
of
outputs
was
likewise
delayed.
(xv) Delays
on
the
“final
delivery”
of
early
warning
devices.
PAGASA
mentioned
that
while
the
early
warning
devices
had
been
established
on
the
ground
much
earlier,
they
were
for
a
time
not
operational
and
functional.
Time
and
again,
PAGASA
would
make
follow-‐ups
with
the
contractor
for
repair
and
to
check
the
installation.
At
the
time
of
the
evaluation,
the
contractor
had
checked
and
fixed
some
devices.
(xvi) Counterpart
funds
of
offices
were
limited;
not
programmed.
Few
offices
and
LGUs
had
limited
funds
to
support
the
project
because
such
had
not
been
budgeted,
allocated
or
programmed.
(xvii) Changing
schedules
of
activities.
Some
representatives
found
it
hard
to
cope
with
the
demands
of
the
project
because
of
changing
of
activities
such
as
trainings,
workshops
and
writeshops.
This
was
compounded
by
conflicting
schedules
they
had
in
their
respective
offices.
(xviii) Activities
were
too
time
consuming.
It
was
opined
that
project
activities
were
too
time
consuming,
almost
eating
much
on
participants’
official
time.
They
said
that
the
project
seemed
to
have
become
a
regular
task
of
their
agencies
or
offices.
Obsolete
and
outdated
equipment
(radio)
of
PNP
for
rescue
and
emergencies.
The
representatives
from
PNP
expressed
the
effectiveness
of
their
equipment,
particularly
their
obsolete
radios,
in
times
of
disasters
and
emergencies.
While
this
concern
did
not
affect
the
agency’s
participation
in
the
project,
it
was
believed
to
have
an
impact
in
ensuring
that
the
project
would
attain
its
outcome.
50
3.3
Project
Results
a. Overall
results
(attainment
of
objectives)
As
of
end
of
May
2016,
the
project
has
significantly
achieved
results
–
both
intended
and
unintended.
Among
others,
the
results
that
could
be
attributed
to
the
project
are
the
following:
(a)
building
of
awareness
on
DRM
and
CRM
at
various
levels
of
governance,
but
most
particularly
at
the
community
level;
(b)
generation
of
knowledge
and
information
which
could
be
used
by
agencies
as
well
as
to
coordinate
efforts
among
agencies
and
other
partner-‐institutions;
and
(c)
enhancement
of
capacities,
especially
of
the
CSCAND
agencies,
MMDA
and
HLURB
in
the
areas
of
mainstreaming
DRM/CRM
in
local
development
plans
and
regulatory
processes.
More
significantly,
the
project
has
achieved
its
set
objectives
and
generated
the
outputs
it
committed
to
deliver
by
the
end
of
the
project.
Table
9
shows
the
level
of
accomplishment
of
the
project
per
expected
output.
Table
9.
Level
of
Accomplishment
of
the
Project
per
Expected
Output
Level
of
Expected
Output
Accomplishment
Output 1: Disaster and climate risk vulnerabilities assessed 101.4%
Output
2:
Priority
disaster
and
climate
risk
mitigation
actions
120.80%
for
GMMA
developed
and
implemented
Output
3:
Competencies
of
GMMA
LGUs
and
critical
partners
100%
(NGAs,
academe,
professional
associations)
to
mainstream
DRM/CRM
into
local
planning
and
regulatory
processes
enhanced
Output 4: DRM/CRM mainstreaming demonstrated in local land 100%
use and development plans and regulatory processes of Metro
Manila and other selected GMMA LGUs
Output 5: D/CRM Knowledge Management System and/or 100%
Community of Practice established
51
For
expected
output
1
which
is
the
assessment
of
disaster
and
climate
risk
vulnerabilities,
the
project
was
able
to
exceed
its
targets.
Table
10
presents
the
accomplishment
of
the
project
for
output
or
component
1.
Table
10.
Project
Accomplishments
for
Output
1
Target
Activities
Description/Coverag Accomplish-‐ment
Number
e
1.1
Consolidated
Consolidated
multi-‐ 8
8
multi-‐hazard
hazard
(100%)
data/information data/information
for
,
climate
Metro
Manila
and
4
scenarios
provinces
(5)
and
(baseline
2020,
climate
scenario
and
2050)
and
disaggregated
socio-‐
disaggregated
economic/health
data
socio-‐economic
sets
for
selected
GMMA
data
sets
for
LGUs
(3)
GMMA
1.2
Boundaries
of
Metro
Manila
and
17
cities/
18
Metro
Manila
and
Bulacan
muns.
and
(100%)
Bulacan
Province
1
province
validated
1.3
Enhanced
flood,
Hazard
maps
206
cities/
206
landslide
and
muns.
(100%)
storm
surge
Flood
(17
cities/muns.)
34
C/M
34
C/M
hazard
maps
RIL
(10
cities/muns.)
(100%)
SS
(7
cities)
in
MM
@1:5K
scale
Flood
(49
in
Bulacan,
49
C/M
49
C/M
Cavite,
Laguna
and
(100%)
Rizal)
@1:50K
scale
RIL
(66
in
Bulacan,
66
C/M
66
C/M
Cavite,
Laguna
and
(100%)
Rizal)
by
MGB
@1:50K
scale
Flood
(51
in
Bulacan,
51
C/M
51
C/M
Cavite,
Laguna
and
(100%)
Rizal)
@1:10K
scale
RIL
(6
cities
and
muns.
6
C/M
6
C/M
in
Rizal
and
Bulacan)
(100%)
52
@1:10K
scale
1.4
Updated
seismic/
Hazard
maps
228
228
geologic
hazard
(100%)
maps
Multi-‐hazard
maps
54
C/M
54
(GR-‐6,
GS-‐17,
EIL-‐5,
(100%)
Liquefaction-‐17
and
Tsunami-‐9)
produced
for
MM
@
1:5K
scale
Multi-‐hazard
maps
83
C/M
83
(GR-‐13
in
Laguna
and
(100%)
Cavite,
GS-‐53
in
Laguna
and
Cavite,
and
Tsunami-‐17
in
Cavite
and
Bulacan)
@
1:10K
scale
Multi-‐hazard
maps
(GS-‐ 91
C/M
91
38
in
Bulacan
and
(100%)
Rizal,
Liquefaction-‐36
in
Bulacan
and
Rizal,
and
EIL-‐17
in
Bulacan
and
Rizal)
@
1:50K
scale.
1.5
Enhanced
flood,
Printed
multi-‐hazard
1,024
hard
1,184
hardcopies
and
151
landslide
and
maps
copies
and
e-‐copies
storm
surge
151
e-‐ (114%)
hazard
maps/
copies
updated
seismic
HYDROMET
484
hard
484
hard
copies
and
and
geologic
copies
and
86
e-‐copies
hazard
maps
86
e-‐copies
(100%)
Flood,
RIL
and
SS
in
254
sheets
254
sheets
MM
@1:5K
scale
(127
(100%)
sheets
x
2
sets)
Flood/RIL
in
4
230
sheets
230
sheets
provinces
by
MGB
(100%)
@1:50K
scale
(115
sheets
x
2
sets)
Flood
in
4
provinces
@
68
sheets
68
sheets
1:10K
and
RIL
in
2
(100%)
provinces
@1:10K
scale
(68
sets
in
e-‐copy)
SEISMIC
540
hard
700
hard
copies
and
83
e-‐
copies
and
copies
83
e-‐copies
(127%)
Multi-‐hazard
maps
(GR,
358
sheets
358
sheets
GS,
EIL,
Liquefaction
(100%)
and
Tsunami)
produced
for
MM
@1:5K
scale
(179
sheets
x
2
sets)
53
Multi-‐hazard
maps
(GS,
182
sheets
342
sheets
Liquefaction
and
EIL)
(188%)
produced
for
Bulacan
and
Rizal
at
1:50K
scale
(91
sheets
x
2
sets)
Multi-‐hazard
maps
(GR,
83
sheets
83
sheets
(100%)
GS
and
Tsunami)
(e-‐copy)
produced
for
Bulacan,
Cavite,
Laguna
and
Rizal
@
1:10K
scale
(83
sheets)
Additional
outputs:
20
copies
Compilation
of
GMMA
READY
Hazard
Maps
in
A3
paper
1.6
Enhanced
REDAS
as
a
multi-‐hazard/
risk
3
3
assessment
tool
(100%)
Enhanced
REDAS
1
EQ
1
module,
exposure
data
module
(100%)
base
and
risk
maps/
applied
in
4
data
for
Bulacan,
provinces
Cavite,
Laguna
and
Rizal
Severe
wind
1
module
1
hazard/risk
assessment
(100%)
module
Flood
hazard/risk
1
module
1
assessment
module
(100%)
1.7
Geomorphic
impact
assessment
models
for
3
models
Table
15. models
SS,
flood
and
landslide
applied
in
applied
in
12
sites
12
sites
(100%)
GIM
model
for
landslide
1
model
1
model
applied
in
1
site
applied
in
1
site
applied
in
1
(100%)
(Antipolo)
site
GIM
flood
for
storm
1
model
1
model
applied
in
8
sites
surge
(7
MM
LGUs
and
applied
in
8
(100%)
Obando,
Bulacan)
sites
GIM
model
for
flood
(3
1
model
1
model
applied
in
3
sites
LGUs
of
Cavite)
applied
in
3
(100%)
sites
1.8
Valley
Fault
Produced
and
1
atlas,
1
atlas,
reproduced
to
System
Atlas
reproduced
(1,000
reproduce 1,000
copies)
and
launched
d
to
1,000
(100%)
1.9
Vulnerability
and
adaptation
assessment
9
9
on
impact
of
climate
change
in
health
and
(100%)
socio-‐economic
sectors
of
target
Metro
Manila
cities
V&A
assessment
reports
6
6
54
for
San
Juan,
Marikina
(100%)
and
Pasig;
Individual
V&A
assessment
reports
(health
and
socio-‐
econ.)
Integrated
V&A
3
3
assessment
reports
for
(100%)
health
and
socio-‐
economic
sectors
for
3
cities:
Marikina,
San
Juan
and
Pasig.
1.1 GMMA-‐wide
Actual
conduct
of
IEC
21/21
21/21
0
information
and
IEC
(100%)
Education
and
documentation
Communication
reports:
17
MM
cities/
Campaign
municipalities
and
the
provinces
of
Bulacan,
Cavite,
Laguna
and
Rizal
For
output
or
component
2,
the
level
of
performance
was
98.3%.
The
slippage
was
attributed
to
the
delays
in
the
approval
of
contingency
plans
in
selected
pilot
LGUs
in
the
GMMA.
Table
11
presents
the
level
of
accomplishment
for
output
or
component
2
which
is
priority
disaster
and
climate
risk
mitigation
actions
for
GMMA
developed
and
implemented.
Table
11.
Project
Accomplishments
for
Output
2
Target
Accomplish-‐
Activities
Description
No.
ment
2.1
CBEWS
on
flood,
land
slide,
tsunami
an
storm
surge
46
sites
46
sites
established
and
corresponding
monitoring
teams
trained
(100%)
13
ARG,
15
WLG
and
4
data
34
sites
34
sites
centers
in
Bulacan,
Cavite,
(100)
Laguna
and
Rizal
and
2
data
centers
at
PAGASA
and
NDRRMC
CBEWS
on
tsunami
in
6
sites
6
sites
6
sites
(MM,
Bulacan
and
Cavite)
(100%)
CBEWS
on
storm
surge
in
4
sites
4
sites
4
sites
(MM,
Bulacan
and
Cavite)
CBEWS
on
RIL
in
QC
and
2
sites
2
sites
Antipolo,
Rizal
55
2.2
Individual
and
integrated
contingency
plans
on
flooding
128%
and
earthquake
formulated,
tested
and
approved
Individual
CPs
on
17
LGUs
with
formulated
(F),
17
–
F
27
–
F
flooding
and
tested
(T)
and
approved
(A)
17
–
T
26
–
T
earthquake
individual
contingency
plans
on
17
–
A
21
–
A
formulated,
tested
and
flood
(145%)
approved
17
LGUs
with
formulated,
tested
17
–
F
21
–
F
and
approved
individual
17
–
T
21
–
T
contingency
plans
on
earthquake
17
–
A
15
–
A
(111%)
2.3
Integrated
contingency
plan
on
earthquake
formulated,
1
3
tested
and
approved
(300%)
Formulated,
tested,
approved
1
1
and
launched
integrated
(100%)
contingency
plan
for
Metro
Manila
Provincial
Contingency
Plan
on
1
2
earthquake
and
flooding
for
(200%)
Bulacan
For
component
or
output
3,
the
project
registered
a
level
of
accomplishment
of
99.5%.
Although
the
project
has
exceeded
its
targets
in
most
items
under
this
component,
the
0.05%
slippage
could
be
attributed
to
the
non-‐
completion
of
the
initial
draft
of
the
report
on
the
capacity
needs
assessment
and
competency
development
implementation
evaluation.
Table
12
presents
the
accomplishment
of
the
project
for
output
3.
Table
12.
Project
Accomplishments
for
Output
3
Target
Accomplish-‐
Activities
Description
No.
ment
3.1
Capacity
needs
assessment
and
competency
development
1
report
1
report
implementation
evaluation
report
(100%)
3.2
Capacity
development
trainings
conducted
for
at
least
40
42
127
LGUs
LGUs
and
partners
(30%
of
and
partners
GMMA
(302%)
LGUs
and
partner)
GIS
trainings
for
IP/RPs
and
MMDA
4
trainings
REDAS
Trainings
for
IP/RPs,
P/C/MLGUs,
academic
6
trainings
institutions
and
other
partners
56
For
output
or
component
4,
the
project
reported
99.33%
accomplishment
of
its
targets.
As
of
the
evaluation
period,
terminal
reports
are
being
completed
and
finalized.
Table
13
presents
the
accomplishment
of
the
project
for
output
or
component
4.
Table
13.
Project
Accomplishments
for
Output
4
Target
Accomplish-‐
Activities
Description
No.
ment
4.1
8
LGUs
with
DRR/CCA
enhanced
Comprehensive
Land
8
CLUPs,
8
8
CLUPs,
8
Use
Plans
and
Zoning
Ordinances
Zoning
Zoning
Ordinances
Ordinances
(100%)
4.2
DRR/CCA
Sensitivity
of
Metro
Manila
Regional
Physical
1
1
Framework
Plan
Assessment
Report
Assessment
Assessment
Report
Report
(100%)
4.3
Terminal
Reports
2
2
(100%)
For
output
or
component
5,
the
project
accomplished
99.75%
of
its
target
for
the
whole
project
duration.
While
it
was
able
to
conduct
IEC
caravans
in
five
(5)
venues,
the
coverage
and
reach
could
be
further
expanded.
Table
14
shows
the
performance
of
the
project
for
output
or
component
5
on
KM
and
CoP.
Table
14
Project
Accomplishments
for
Output
5
Target
Accomplish-‐
Activities
Description
No.
ment
5.1
KM-‐CoP
design
Pre-‐tested
and
finalized
1
website
1
website
(100%)
5.2
KM-‐CoP
Operational
Users’
Manual
formulated
1
1
(100%)
CSCAND
and
other
partners
4
trainings
3 trainings
trained
(IP/RPs
and
selected
(100%)
57
LGUs
and
partners):
website
and
website
features;
website
operation,
pre-‐testing
of
users’
manual;
uploading
of
articles,
presentation
and
finalization
of
the
enhanced
website
operation
Cleared
documents
uploaded:
8
8
all
IP/RPs
with
uploaded
documents
documents
documents
(100%)
5.3
KM-‐CoP
Communication
plan
1
1
institutionalized
formulated
(100%)
1
KM-‐CoP
brochure
and
6
6
various
collaterals
developed
(100%)
IEC
Caravan
conducted
in
4
4
4
venues
(MM,
provinces
of
(100%)
Bulacan,
Cavite,
Laguna
and
Rzal)
KM-‐CoP
launched
1
1
(100%)
Terminal
Report
with
1
1
(initial)
sustainability
plan
including
(100%)
IEC
documentation
b. Relevance,
Effectiveness
&
Efficiency,
Country
ownership,
Mainstreaming,
Sustainability,
Impact
The
results
of
the
evaluation
rating
survey
indicated
an
excellent
performance
of
the
project
in
terms
of
its
outcomes,
effectiveness,
efficiency,
M&E,
IE&A
Execution,
relevance,
sustainability
and
impact.
The
results
of
the
survey
as
presented
in
Annex
9
are
summarized
in
Table
15.
Table
15.
Summary
of
Evaluation
Rating
for
the
Project
Dimension
Rating
Rating
Description
Outcome Highly The project had no shortcomings in the
Satisfactory (HS) achievement of its objectives and expected outputs
Effectiveness
Highly
The
project
had
no
shortcomings
in
putting
in
the
Satisfactory
(HS)
right
interventions
Efficiency Highly The project had no shortcomings in properly
Satisfactory (HS) executing interventions
58
M&E
Highly
The
project
had
no
shortcomings
in
monitoring
and
Satisfactory
(HS)
evaluation
of
project
progress
and
status,
and
that
proper
solutions
were
properly
undertaken
to
address
implementation
challenges
IE&A
Execution
Highly
The
project
had
no
shortcomings
in
the
execution
Satisfactory
(HS)
of
I&EA
for
the
project
and
its
components
Sustainability Likely (L) Negligible risks to sustainability
Relevance Relevant ® Project intervention/s is/are necessary
Impacts
Significant
(S)
Impacts
of
the
project
as
of
the
time
of
evaluation
are
greatly
felt
In
addition
to
the
ratings
provided
by
interviewees
and
respondents,
some
qualitative
information
and
insights
were
likewise
provided.
On
the
outcomes
of
the
project,
the
CSCAND
agencies
mentioned
that
the
project
had
enabled
them
to
do
more
than
what
they
could
normally
deliver
given
the
existing
capacities
of
their
offices.
While
the
outputs
they
generated
for
the
project
are
part
of
their
mandated
functions,
the
project
had
allowed
them
to
fast
track
the
delivery
of
outputs.
Likewise,
they
were
inspired
to
see
the
usefulness
of
their
outputs
for
the
benefit
of
vulnerable
communities.
The
project
also
provided
them
the
opportunity
to
produce
hazard
maps
and
other
information
in
bigger
scales
which
they
thought
are
more
useful
and
relevant
to
communities.
Further,
they
said
that
the
experience
they
gained
from
the
project
would
provide
them
the
model
and
the
right
approach
in
producing
similar
outputs
for
other
areas
in
the
country.
As
for
HLURB,
the
project
had
enabled
the
agency
to
come
closer
to
the
LGUs
which
is
actually
its
mandate.
The
project
provided
the
opportunity
for
HLURB
to
share
its
technical
expertise
and
in
helping
LGUs
prepare
their
CLUPs
and
ZOs,
as
well
as
for
the
agency
to
revisit
and
enhance
its
technical
capacities.
For
MMDA,
the
project
is
seen
as
a
vehicle
for
the
agency
to
revive
its
competencies
in
GIS
application
in
planning
and
decision-‐making.
Moreover,
it
allowed
the
agency
to
brush
up
its
engagement
with
LGUs
in
land
use
planning
and
zoning.
For
local
governments,
the
formulation
of
contingency
plans
enabled
them
to
get
the
seal
of
good
local
governance
award
from
the
DILG
specifically
for
disaster
preparedness.
59
It
terms
of
effectiveness,
efficiency
and
relevance,
the
project
was
seen
as
a
vehicle
in
delivering
what
were
necessary
at
this
time
in
the
most
judicious
and
prudent
manner.
The
production
of
hazard
maps,
the
preparation
of
CLUPs
and
ZOs,
the
installation
of
early
warning
devices,
and
the
review
and
reformulation
of
local
contingency
plans
are
some
of
the
urgent
activities
that
agencies
and
local
government
units
had
been
trying
to
accomplish
yet
could
not
do
so
because
of
other
priorities
of
their
offices
and
their
limited
skills
and
technical
knowhow.
The
project
laid
the
foundation
in
which
critical
follow-‐through
activities
could
be
undertaken.
For
monitoring
and
evaluation
(M&E),
the
project
employed
this
not
only
to
track
the
progress
of
the
project
and
the
performance
of
other
duty
bearers
but
as
a
tool
in
overall
management
of
the
project.
Key
to
the
M&E
were
the
activities
and
outputs
plus
the
budget
allocated
for
each
of
the
components
of
the
project.
Beyond
these,
however,
M&E-‐related
activities
were
done
by
the
implementing
partner
as
means
in
solving
problems
and
challenges
as
well
as
finding
solutions
to
such
even
at
an
agency
or
local
level.
In
terms
of
IE&A
execution,
the
project
ably
developed
a
higher
level
of
awareness
(than
the
baseline)
at
all
levels
–
agency,
local
government,
barangay
and
community
residents.
This
led
to
the
formulation
of
cleared
policies,
action
plans
and
contingency
plans
that
are
responsive
to
disaster
events
and
emergencies.
It
allowed
duty
bearers
to
become
more
aware
of
their
strengths,
their
needs
and
requirements
during
emergency
situations,
and
their
capacities
to
perform
their
tasks.
It
likewise
advanced
their
level
of
commitment
and
support
to
related
activities.
For
sustainability,
the
gains
of
the
project
could
be
replicated,
mainstreamed
and
scaled
up
given
the
following
conditions:
(a)
strict
allocation
and
judicious
use
of
the
local
DRRM
fund;
(b)
institutionalization
of
local
DRRM
councils
and
offices;
and
(c)
continuous
conduct
of
EI&A
activities.
On
impacts,
the
mainstreaming
of
DRM/CRM
in
planning
and
regulatory
processes
opened
other
avenues
to
improve
the
performance
of
government
agencies
and
local
government
units.
Specific
policies
and
regulatory
measures
are
envisioned
to
be
formulated,
issued
and
enforced
in
the
immediate
term,
which
would
in
turn
results
to
the
promotion
of
well-‐being
and
quality
life
for
communities,
particularly
the
vulnerable
groups,
and
to
the
maintenance
and
protection
of
the
integrity
of
the
environment.
60
IV.
Lessons,
Conclusions
and
Recommendations
4.1. Corrective
actions
for
the
design,
implementation,
monitoring
and
evaluation
of
the
project
Based
on
the
evaluation
of
the
project,
the
following
conclusions
could
be
derived:
a. The
design
of
the
project
is
in
order,
clear
and
logical
given
immediate
objectives.
b. Some
difficulties
experienced
by
responsible
partners
and
critical
stakeholders
during
project
implementation
(e.g.,
limited
political
will,
limited
support,
indifference
and
reluctance)
are
the
function
of
IE&A.
Given
this,
IE&A
should
be
seen
as
major
entry
point
for
the
project
rather
than
a
result
of
the
various
activities
conducted
and
the
outputs
generated
by
the
project.
Gaining
support
for
and
promoting
ownership
of
the
project
by
agencies,
local
governments,
communities
and
residents
should
be
a
requisite,
deliberate
undertaking
of
this
and
similar
projects.
c. On
monitoring
and
evaluation,
adjustments
to
work
plans,
and
approvals
thereof,
should
be
documented
in
a
change
log
for
easy
tracking
of
changes
and
deviations.
Hence,
justification
at
the
end
line
would
be
easier
to
formulate.
4.2. Actions
to
follow
up
or
reinforce
initial
benefits
from
the
project
The
project
was
able
to
accomplish
its
deliverables
and
generated
all
the
expected
outputs.
Some
actions
are,
however,
necessary
to
reinforce
initial
benefits
derived
from
the
project
and
to
ensure
that
the
objectives
of
the
project
are
wholly
met.
These
are:
a. Approval
of
some
CLUPs
and
ZOs
b. Continuous
review
and
enhancement
of
contingency
plans
of
local
government
units
c. Popularization
of
the
Guidebook
on
the
Formulation
of
CLUP
d. Popularization
of
the
technical
outputs
of
CSCAND
agencies,
e.g.,
hazard
maps
and
the
Atlas
on
the
West
and
East
Valley
Faults
e. Popularization
and
furtherance
of
the
Community
of
Practice
61
f. Derive
policies
from
DRM/CRM-‐sensitive
CLUPs
and
Contingency
Plans
to
improve
regulatory
regime
at
the
local
level
g. Engage
communities
in
the
upkeep
and
regular
maintenance
of
CBEWS
and
the
allocation
of
funds
by
the
local
governments
for
the
purpose
h. Strengthen
local
DRRM
councils
and
offices
through
regular
capacity
enhancement
programs
i. Continuous
conduct
of
IE&A
activities
especially
at
the
community
level
j. Undertake
studies
on
the
economic
valuation
of
risk
events
at
various
scenarios
k. Increase
efforts
on
climate
risk
management
especially
at
the
community
level
4.3. Proposals
for
future
directions
underlining
main
objectives
The
following
proposals
are
put
forward
to
improve
the
design
and
approach
of
projects
with
similar
objectives
in
the
future:
a. Institutionalization
and
strengthening
of
local
DRRM
councils
and
offices
by
providing
adequate
regular
plantilla
positions
and
incentives
to
employees
and
equipping
with
facilities
and
equipment
that
are
useful
and
responsive
during
times
of
emergencies
b. Assistance
to
local
DRRM
councils
and
offices
on
the
judicious
use
of
LDRRM
Fund
c. Review
of
the
Procurement
Law
and
engage
the
Commission
on
Audit
(COA)
to
facilitate
the
process
of
procuring
essential
supplies
and
goods
during
disaster
and
emergency
situations
d. Strengthen
regulatory
processes
at
the
local
level
making
them
more
DRM/CRM-‐sensitive
e. Increase
participation
and
enhance
capacities
of
private
sector
groups,
i.e.,
business,
academe
and
civil
society
organizations,
in
responding
to
the
challenges
of
disasters
and
climate
change
f. Pushing
further
items
a
and
b
above,
the
national
government
–
through
the
NDRRMC-‐OCD
–
should
create
a
special
project
on
DRM/CRM
that
adopts
and
replicates
the
GMMA-‐READY
Project
in
highly
urbanized
cities
and
other
urbanized
and
calamity-‐vulnerable
areas
in
the
country
and
62
provide
annual
appropriations
through
the
succeeding
General
Appropriation
Acts
(GAA)
of
the
country.
g. Corollarily,
the
government
should
endeavor
to
roll
out
and
mainstream
the
processes
and
approaches
employed
in
the
project
in
local
government
planning
and
regulatory
processes
h. Summing
all
up,
these
proposals
call
for
the
creation
of
a
National
Disaster
Risk
Management
Authority
(NDRMA),
renaming
NDRRMC-‐OCD
and
further
strengthening
the
CSCAND
agencies
and
capacitating
LGUs
4.4. Best
and
worst
practices
in
addressing
issues
relating
to
relevance,
performance
and
success
Some
of
the
best
practices
that
could
be
extracted
from
the
implementation
experiences
of
the
project
include:
a. Output-‐based
financing
for
project
components.
This
allowed
flexibility
on
the
part
of
the
responsible
partners
in
adjusting
and
customizing
activities
that
fit
the
requirements
for
the
production
or
generation
of
intended
outputs.
b. Interdependence
instead
of
compartmentalization
of
project
components.
Responsible
partners
worked
closely
together
in
all
components
of
the
project
because
their
inputs
were
deemed
important.
It
promotes
functional
effectiveness
and
cost-‐efficiency.
c. Local
manufacturer
for
CBEWS.
This
lessened
the
cost
of
production
and
manufacturing,
installation
of
and
the
provision
of
after-‐sale
services
for
CBEWS.
This
also
allowed
the
development
local
innovators
and
scientists.
The
replication
of
these
CBEWS
in
other
parts
of
the
country
would
be
easier
and
less
expensive.
63
Annexes
64
Annex
1
Terms
of
Reference
(TOR)
TERMINAL
EVALUATION
CONTRACTOR
FOR
GMMA
READY
PROJECT
PROJECT
TITLE
Enhancing
Greater
Metro
Manila’s
Institutional
Capacities
for
Effective
Disaster
/Climate
Risk
Management
towards
Sustainable
Development
or
GMMA
READY
Project
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
The
implementation
of
the
GMMA
READY
Project
is
a
collaborative
endeavour
between
and
among
a
number
of
national
and
sub-‐national
agencies,
local
government
units
(LGUs)
and
civil
society
organizations
with
the
National
Disaster
Risk
Reduction
and
Management
Council
(NDRRMC)
-‐
Office
of
Civil
Defense
(OCD)
as
Implementing
Partner
(IP)
and
the
following
agencies
as
Responsible
Partners
(RPs)
with
DILG
and
NEDA
as
Cooperating
Agencies:
1.
Philippine
Institute
of
Volcanology
and
Seismology
(PHIVOLCS)
2.
Philippine
Atmospheric,
Geophysical
and
Astronomical
Services
Administration
(PAGASA)
3.
National
Mapping
and
Resource
Information
Authority
(NAMRIA)
4.
Mines
and
Geosciences
Bureau
(MGB)
5.
Housing
and
Land
Use
Regulatory
Board
(HLURB)
6.
Metro
Manila
Development
Authority
(MMDA)
7.
Climate
Change
Commission
(CCC)
The
Project
aims
to
increase
institutional
capacities
of
key
local
and
national
risk
management
actors
towards
a
disaster
/climate
resilient
GMMA.
The
project
has
as
coverage
:
Metro
Manila
in
the
national
capital
region
and
the
contiguous
provinces
of
Laguna,
Cavite
and
Rizal
in
Region
IVA
and
Bulacan
in
Region
III.
The
project
is
expected
to
be
achieved
through
the
systematic
and
integrated
implementation
and
attainment
of
five
(5)
key
outputs:
Ø Expected
Output
1:
GMMA’s
vulnerabilities
to
disaster
and
climate
change
risks
assessed;
Ø Expected
Output
2:
Priority
disaster/climate
risk
mitigation
actions
for
GMMA
such
as
formulation
and
testing
of
an
integrated
contingency
plan
and
establishment
of
early
warning
systems
developed
and
implemented;
Ø Expected
Output
3:
Competencies
of
GMMA
LGUs
and
critical
partners
to
mainstream
DRM/CRM
into
local
planning
and
regulatory
processes
enhanced;
Ø Expected
Output
4:
Mainstreaming
DRM/CRM
into
local
land
use/development
plan(s)
and
regulatory
processes
of
Metro
Manila
and
selected
GMMA
LGUs
demonstrated;
and
Ø Expected
Output
5:
Knowledge
management
system,
including
a
vigorous
Community
of
Practice
on
Disaster/Climate
Risk
Management
established.
65
The
objectives
of
the
evaluation
are
to
assess
the
achievement
of
project
results,
draw
lessons
and
good
practices
that
can
both
improve
the
sustainability
of
benefits
from
this
project,
aid
in
the
overall
enhancement
of
UNDP
and
GOP
programming.
SCOPE
OF
WORK
Specifically,
the
terminal
evaluation
should
be
able
to:
1. Assess
Project
Results.
The
final
evaluation
will
assess
achievement
of
the
project’s
objective,
outputs
and
outcomes
and
provide
ratings
for
the
targeted
objective
and
outcomes
and
the
extent
to
which
they
were
achieved.
The
evaluation
will
also
assess
if
the
project
has
led
to
any
other
short
term
or
long
term
positive
or
negative
consequences.
While
assessing
a
project’s
results,
the
final
evaluation
will
seek
to
determine
the
extent
of
achievement
and
shortcomings
in
reaching
the
project’s
objective
as
stated
in
the
project
document
and
also
indicate
if
there
were
any
changes
and
whether
those
changes
were
approved.
If
the
project
did
not
establish
a
baseline
(initial
conditions),
the
evaluator
should
seek
to
estimate
the
baseline
condition
so
that
achievements
and
results
can
be
properly
established.
Assessment
of
project
outcomes
should
be
a
priority.
Outcomes
could
include
but
are
not
restricted
to
stronger
institutional
capacities,
higher
public
awareness
(when
leading
to
changes
of
behavior),
and
transformed
policy
frameworks
or
markets.
An
assessment
of
early
or
emerging
impact
should
also
be
determined,
if
possible.
The
evaluator
should
assess
project
results
using
indicators
and
relevant
tracking
tools.
To
determine
the
level
of
achievement
of
the
project’s
objective
and
outcomes,
the
evaluation
will
be
undertaken
using
the
following
criteria:
Relevance,
Efficiency
and
Effectiveness
The
evaluation
of
relevancy,
effectiveness
and
efficiency
will
be
as
objective
as
possible
and
will
include
sufficient
and
convincing
empirical
evidence.
Ideally,
the
project
monitoring
system
should
deliver
quantifiable
information
that
can
lead
to
a
robust
assessment
of
the
project’s
effectiveness
and
efficiency.
In
rating
the
project’s
outcomes,
relevance
and
effectiveness
will
be
considered
as
critical
criteria.
The
evaluator
will
also
assess
other
results
of
the
project,
including
positive
and
negative
actual
(or
anticipated)
impacts
or
emerging
long-‐term
effects
of
a
project.
However,
given
the
long
term
nature
of
impacts,
it
might
not
be
possible
for
the
evaluator
to
identify
or
fully
assess
them.
Evaluator
will,
nonetheless,
indicate
the
steps
to
be
taken
to
assess
long-‐term
project
impacts,
e.g.
impacts
on
local
populations,
especially
the
vulnerable
like
women,
children
and
the
elderly;
replication
effects
and
other
local
effects.
• Capacity
Development.
The
effects
of
Project
activities
on
strengthening
the
capacities
of
the
IP,
other
responsible
partners,
concerned
peoples’/community
based
organization
(s);
and
concerned
local
government
unit(s)
will
be
assessed.
• Leverage.
An
assessment
of
the
Project’s
effectiveness
in
leveraging
funds
that
66
would
influence
larger
projects
or
broader
policies
to
support
its
goal
should
also
be
made.
• Awareness
Raising.
The
Project’s
contribution
to
raising
awareness
on
environmental
issues,
as
well
as
its
contribution
to
promoting
policy
or
advocacy
activities
and
collaboration
among
communities
will
be
assessed.
• Gender
Mainstreaming.
The
Project’s
contribution
to
mainstreaming
gender
perspective
will
be
assessed.
Financial
Delivery.
The
following
table
should
be
completed
to
provide
a
summary
of
the
planned
and
actual
activities
of
the
project
as
well
as
the
expenditures
up
to
the
present.
2. Assess
Sustainability
of
Project
Outcomes.
The
final
evaluation
will
assess
the
likelihood
of
sustainability
of
outcomes
at
project
termination,
and
provide
a
rating
for
this.
Sustainability
will
be
understood
as
the
likelihood
of
continued
benefits
after
the
project
ends.
The
sustainability
assessment
will
give
special
attention
to
analysis
of
the
risks
that
are
likely
to
affect
the
persistence
of
project
outcomes.
The
sustainability
assessment
should
also
explain
how
other
important
contextual
factors
that
are
not
outcomes
of
the
project
will
affect
sustainability.
The
following
dimensions
or
aspects
of
sustainability
will
be
addressed:
a)
Financial,
b)
Socio
–political,
c)
Institutional
framework
and
governance,
and
d)
Environmental
.
3. Assess
the
Project’s
Catalytic
Role
/
Partnerships
and
Replicability.
The
final
evaluation
will
also
describe
any
catalytic
or
replication
effect
of
the
project.
If
no
effects
are
identified,
the
evaluation
will
describe
the
catalytic
or
replication
actions
that
the
project
carried
out.
Indicators
for
catalytic
or
replication
effect
would
include
partnerships
established,
IEC
activities
carried-‐out,
local
level
acceptance
and
understanding
of
project,
local
level
behavioral
changes,
if
any,
should
be
noted.
4.
Assess
the
Project’s
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
System.
The
final
evaluation
will
assess
whether
the
project
met
the
minimum
requirements
for
project
design
of
M&E
and
the
implementation
of
the
Project
M&E
plan.
Projects
must
have
adequate
budget
for
execution
of
the
M&E
plan,
and
provide
adequate
resources
during
implementation
of
the
M&E
plan.
Project
managers
are
also
expected
to
use
the
information
generated
by
the
M&E
system
during
project
implementation
to
adapt
and
improve
the
project.
The
final
evaluation
report
will
include
separate
assessments
of
the
achievements
and
shortcomings
of
the
project
M&E
plan
and
of
implementation
of
the
M&E
plan.
5. Assess
Processes
that
Affected
Attainment
of
Project
Results.
It
is
suggested
that
the
evaluator
also
considers
the
following
issues
affecting
project
implementation
and
attainment
of
project
results,
when
relevant.
Evaluators
are
not
expected
to
provide
ratings
or
separate
assessment
on
the
following
issues
but
may
consider
them
while
assessing
the
performance
and
results:
a)
Preparation
and
readiness;
b)
Country
ownership;
c)
Stakeholders
involvement
;
d)
Financial
planning;
e)
Implementing/Executing
Agency’s
supervision
and
backstopping;
f)
Co-‐financing
and
Project
Outcomes
and
Sustainability;
and
g)
Delays
and
Project
Outcomes
and
Sustainability.
6. Identify
lessons
and
provide
recommendations
for
future
actions.
The
evaluator
will
present
lessons
and
recommendations
in
the
final
evaluation
report
on
all
aspects
of
the
project
that
they
consider
relevant.
The
evaluator
will
be
expected
to
give
special
67
attention
to
analyzing
lessons
and
proposing
recommendations
on
aspects
related
to
factors
that
contributed
or
hindered:
attainment
of
project
objectives,
sustainability
of
project
benefits,
innovation,
catalytic
effect
and
replication,
and
project
monitoring
and
evaluation.
Evaluator
should
seek
to
provide
a
few
well
formulated
lessons
applicable
to
the
type
of
project
at
hand
or
to
UNDP
E&E
overall
portfolio.
Final
evaluations
should
not
be
undertaken
with
the
motive
of
appraisal,
preparation,
or
justification,
for
a
follow-‐up
phase.
Wherever
possible,
the
final
evaluation
report
should
include
examples
of
good
practices
for
other
projects
in
a
focal
area,
country
or
region.
To
determine
the
level
of
achievement
of
the
project’s
objective
and
outcomes,
the
evaluation
will
be
undertaken
using
the
following
criteria:
Relevance,
Efficiency,
Effectiveness,
sustainability
and
impact.
Refer
to
TOR
ANNEX
2
for
set
of
questions
covering
each
of
the
criteria.
The
evaluator
may
amend,
complete,
and
submit
the
matrix
as
part
of
the
inception
report
and
as
annex
to
the
final
report.
The
evaluation
must
provide
evidenced
based
information
that
is
credible,
reliable
and
useful.
The
evaluator
is
expected
to
follow
a
participatory
and
consultative
approach
ensuring
close
engagement
with
responsible
partners
and
other
stakeholders
of
the
project
through
UNDP,
OCD
and
Project
Team.
The
evaluator
is
expected
to
conduct
field
visits
to
project
sites
in
the
cities
and
municipality
of
Metro
Manila
and
the
provinces
of
Bulacan
in
Regions
III
and
Rizal,
Laguna,
Cavite
in
region
IVA.
Interviews
will
be
held
with
the
following
LGUs,
individuals
and
agencies
at
a
minimum.
List
and
contact
numbers
shall
be
provided
by
the
project
team
during
the
inception
meeting:
1.
Team
Managers
or
representatives
from
the
Responsible
Partners
2.
CPDCs/DRRMOs
of
LGUs
(17
MM
an
3.
OCD
PMD
staff
4.
National
Program
Director,
Project
Manager,
Assistant
Project
Manager
5.
UNDP
representative
6.
Representatives
from
other
partners
The
evaluator
will
review
all
relevant
sources
of
information,
such
as
the
Project
Document,
Project
Annual
and
Quarterly
reports,
project
budget
revisions,
progress
reports,
project
files.
List
of
documents
for
the
review
of
the
evaluator
is
attached
in
ANNEX
1.
The
evaluation
findings
of
the
evaluation
will
be
based
on
the
following:
1.
A
desk
review
of
project
documents
including,
but
not
limited
to
2.
Field
visits
to
GMMA
READY
-‐supported
projects/areas
3.
Telephone
and
face-‐to-‐face
interviews
with
intended
users
for
the
project
outputs
and
other
stakeholders
involved
with
the
project.
As
appropriate,
these
interviews
could
be
combined
with
email
questionnaires.
4.
KIIs
and
FGD
EXPECTED
OUTPUTS
AND
DELIVERABLES
The
Evaluator
is
expected
to
deliver
the
following:
1. Inception
Report.
This
is
to
be
submitted
by
the
evaluator
before
going
into
full-‐
pledged
data
collection
exercise.
The
inception
report
details
what
is
evaluated
and
why,
how
each
of
the
evaluation
questions
will
be
answered
by
way
of:
proposed
methods,
68
proposed
data
sources
including
data
collection
procedures.
The
evaluator
shall
also
indicate
in
the
inception
report
the
proposed
schedule
of
tasks,
activities
and
deliverables
and
the
evaluators’
team
member
assigned
for
each
of
the
task/deliverable.
The
inception
report
provides
the
programme
unit
and
evaluators
with
an
opportunity
that
they
share
same
understanding
about
the
evaluation
and
clarify
any
issues
and
concerns.
2.
Initial
Findings
for
Presentation
to
Project
Management
and
UNDP.
Towards
the
end
of
the
exercise,
the
Evaluator
will
discuss
its
preliminary
key
findings
and
recommendations
with
the
programme
principals
(OCD
and
UNDP)
and
present
these
at
a
key
stakeholders’
meeting
participated
in
by
the
responsible
partners,
selected
local
government
units
and
beneficiary
organizations.
The
Consultant
shall
use
this
feedback
mechanism
to
finalize
the
report.
3. Draft
Final
Report.
The
evaluator
shall
provide
the
programme
principals
(OCD
and
UNDP)
with
the
draft
final
report
for
review.
4. Terminal
Evaluation
Report.
All
outputs
are
subject
to
the
review
and
final
approval
of
the
contracting
party.
Review
and
Approvals
Deliverables
Target
Due
Dates
Required
Inception
Report
within
the
2
week
nd
after
contract
signing
OCD
and
UNDP
Draft
Evaluation
Report
Within
the
3rd
week
(Initial)
after
inception
meeting
Draft
Final
Report
Within
one
week
after
Initial
Evaluation
Report
Terminal
Evaluation
Report
Within
one
week
after
the
Draft
Final
Report
INSTITUTIONAL
ARRANGEMENT
UNDP
is
the
principal
responsible
for
managing
the
evaluation.
The
Project
team/OCD
PMD
will
be
responsible
for
liaising
with
the
Evaluator
to
set
up
stakeholders
interview
and
field
visits
with
the
following
:
1.
Team
Managers
or
representatives
from
the
Responsible
Partners
2.
CPDCs/DRRMOs
of
LGUs
3.
OCD
PMD
staff
4.
National
Program
Director,
Project
Manager,
Assistant
Project
Manager
5.
UNDP
representative
6.
Representatives
from
other
partners
The
consultant
shall
provide
his/her
own
computers,
cameras,
communication
during
the
entire
contract
duration.
Computers,
projectors,
camera
and
other
equipment
to
be
used
during
the
inception
meeting
shall
be
provided
by
the
Project.
69
DURATION
OF
WORK
The
evaluation
is
expected
to
be
completed
within
a
period
of
two
(2)
months.
Activity
Timing
Month
1
Month
2
Wk1
Wk2
Wk3
Wk4
W5
Wk6
Wk7
Wk8
Preparation
Evaluation
Mission
Draft
Evaluation
Report
Final
Report
The
Project
expects
the
Consultant
to
give
an
estimated
lead
time
of
two
weeks
for
the
RP
and
the
IP
to
review
outputs
and
give
comments
on
the
report
outputs.
DUTY
STATION
The
Consultant
shall
have
as
his/her
duly
station
for
the
contract
duration
at
the
OCD
–
Project
Management
Division.
In
pursuit
of
his/her
other
relevant
activities,
the
Consultant
is
expected
to
travel
to
the
Project
areas
/sites
and
offices
of
other
concerned
agencies
(Annex
2
List
of
areas
or
sites
to
be
visited).
The
Consultant
is
not
required
to
report
regularly
at
their
duty
station/location.
QUALIFICATIONS
OF
THE
SUCCESSFUL
INDIVIDUAL
CONTRACTOR
a) Master’s
degree
(PhD
an
advantage)
in
Development
Management,
Economics,
Social
Sciences,
Community
Development
and
or
other
related
fields
b) At
least
seven
(7)
years
of
progressively
responsible
experience
in
development
research,
evaluation
of
development
programmes,
or
project
management,
preferably
in
areas
related
to
basic
services,
livelihood,
governance,
peace
and
conflict
resolution,
humanitarian
assistance,
internal
displacement
or
community
development
c) Demonstrate
familiarity
with
the
UN
System
and
managing
donor-‐financed
projects
will
be
given
preference.
d) Previous
experience
with
results
based
monitoring
and
evaluation
methodologies,
technical
knowledge
in
the
targeted
focal
area/s.
e) Proven
ability
to
write
high-‐quality
technical
reports
70
SCOPE
OF
PRICE
PROPOSAL
AND
SCHEDULE
OF
PAYMENTS
The
total
cost
for
this
project
is
a
lump
sum
amount
to
include
all
costs
such
as
professional
fee,
travel
and
meeting
costs,
and
overhead
costs,
among
others.
The
schedule
of
payment
will
be
as
follows:
Tranche % of Total Documentation Requirements
Contract
Cost
Ist 20% Upon signing of Contract/Terms of Reference
2nd 20% Upon submission and acceptance by OCD of the approved Inception
Report
3rd 20% Upon submission and acceptance by OCD of the Draft Terminal
Evaluation Report by OCD
4th 40% Upon submission and acceptance by OCD of Final Terminal
Evaluation Report and process documentation report
TOTAL 100%
CRITERIA
FOR
SELECTION
OF
THE
BEST
OFFER
The
Technical
and
Financial
proposals
shall
comprise
70%
and
30%
respectively,
of
the
evaluation
criteria.
Technical
proposal
(70%)
The
Technical
proposal
shall
be
comprised
by
the
following
documents
:
1.CV
of
the
Evaluator
2.Plan
of
Approach
and
Methodology
The
Technical
proposal
shall
be
evaluated
based
on
the
following
criteria:
1.Background
and
experience
of
Evaluator……….
30%
2.
Plan
of
Approach
and
Methodology
……………..
70%
The
Plan
of
Approach
and
Methodology
should
be
a
comprehensive
narrative
explaining
in
detail
how
the
Evaluator
plans
to
undertake
the
assignment,
proposed
list
of
respondents
and
data-‐collection
methods,
detailed
work
plan,
framework
and
working
outline
of
the
evaluation
report.
In
the
beginning
of
the
assignment,
an
inception
meeting
will
be
held
to
discuss,
revise
and
finalize
the
Plan
of
Approach
and
Methodology.
Financial
Proposal
(30%)
The
Financial
Proposal
should
be
all-‐inclusive
covering
professional
fees,
travel
expenses,
supplies
and
all
other
related
expenses.
71
DOCUMENTS
TO
BE
SUBMITTED
BY
APPLICANTS
The
preferred
contents
and
presentation
of
the
offer
shall
be
as
follows
:
a.
Duly
accomplished
Letter
of
Confirmation
of
Interest
and
Availability
b.
Personal
CV,
indication
all
past
experience
from
similar
projects,
as
well
as
the
contact
details
(email
and
telephone
number)
of
the
Candidate
and
at
least
three
(3)
professional
references;
c.
Brief
description
of
why
the
individual
considers
him/herself
as
the
most
suitable
for
the
assignment,
and
a
methodology,
on
how
they
will
approach
and
complete
the
assignment.
d.
Financial
Proposal
that
indicates
the
all-‐inclusive
fixed
total
contract
price,
supported
by
a
breakdown
of
costs,
as
per
template
provided:
-‐
the
number
of
days
required
for
the
assessment
-‐
the
applicant
should
state
the
number
of
areas
that
the
proposal
covers
TOR
ANNEXES
ANNEX
1:
List
of
Project
Documents
to
be
reviewed
by
the
evaluators.
a)
Project
Document
b)
Annual
and
Quarterly
reports
c)
Approved
WFPs
d)
MOAs
e)
Notes
from
PMB
Meetings
d)
Project
related
Knowledge
Products
and
other
materials
such
as
CLUPs
produced;
ANNEX
2.
List
of
Project
sites
and
required
travel
time:
Methodology Agencies/ Persons to be evaluated Location Required Travel
Time
FGD IP and RPs Team Managers, Quezon City Half day
representatives from
technical and
finance
FGD PLGUs and
Assisted MLGUs
and Barangays
Bulacan PDRRMO and PDRRMO, With Travel to 3 days
MDRRMOs of Malolos, Bulacan concerned
assisted MLGUs province and
Cavite PDRRMO and PDRRMO, Trece 2 3 days
MDRRMOs of Martirez, Cavite barangays
assisted MLGUs with CBEWS
on flooding
and one site
with CBEWS
on Tsunami
72
Laguna PDRRMO and PDRRMO, Sta With Travel to 2 .5 days
MDRRMOs of Cruz, Laguna concerned
assisted MLGUs province and
Rizal PDRRMO and PDRRMO, Rizal 2 barangays 2.5 days
MDRRMOs of with CBEWS
assisted MLGUs on flooding
FGD Assisted MM LGUs CPDO and other Muntinlupa One day each
members of CLUP
Team
CPDO and other San Juan Half day
members of CP and
V&A Teams
FGD Assisted MM LGUs CPDO, DRRMO and Paranaque One day
other member of CP
and CLUP Teams
CPDO, DRRMO and Las Pinas One day
other member of CP
and CLUP Teams
Interview Partners Agencies DPWH Manila Half day
DSWD Manila Half day
DILG QC Half day
ANNEX 3. Evaluation Questions
Evaluation Questions Indicators Sources
Criteria
Relevance: How does the project relate to the main objectives of the GEF focal area, and to the
environment and development priorities at the local, regional and national levels
Effectiveness: To what extent have the expected outcomes and objectives of the project been
achieved?
Efficiency: Was the project implemented efficiently, in-‐line with international and national norms
and standards?
Sustainability: To what extent are there financial, institutional, social-‐economic, and/or
environmental risks to sustaining long-‐term project results?
Impact: Are there indications that the project has contributed to, or enabled progress toward,
reduced environmental stress and/or improved ecological status?
ANNEX
4.
Rating
Rating
Scales
Rating
for
Outcomes,
Effectiveness,
Efficiency,
Sustainability
Relevance
ratings
M&E,
I&EA
Execution
ratings
6:
Highly
Satisfactory
(HS):
The
project
had
no
4.
Likely
(L):
2.
Relevant
(R)
73
shortcomings
negligible
risks
1..
Not
relevant
(NR)
in
the
achievement
of
its
objectives
in
terms
of
to
relevance,
sustainability
Impact
Ratings:
effectiveness,
or
efficiency
3.
Moderately
3.
Significant
(S)
5:
Satisfactory
(S):
There
were
only
minor
Likely
2.
Minimal
(M)
shortcomings
(ML):moderate
1.
Negligible
(N)
4:
Moderately
Satisfactory
(MS):there
were
risks
moderate
2.
Moderately
shortcomings
Unlikely
(MU):
3.
Moderately
Unsatisfactory
(MU):
the
project
significant
risks
had
significant
1.
Unlikely
(U):
shortcomings
severe
risks
2.
Unsatisfactory
(U):
there
were
major
shortcomings
in
the
achievement
of
project
objectives
in
terms
of
relevance,
effectiveness,
or
efficiency
1.
Highly
Unsatisfactory
(HU):
The
project
had
severe
Shortcomings
ANNEX
5.
Evaluation
Report
Outline
i.
Opening
page:
Title
of
Project,
Project
IDs,
Evaluation
time
frame
and
date
of
evaluation,
regions
included
in
the
report,
operational/strategic
program,
implementing
and
responsible
partners,
other
project
partners,
evaluation
team
members
and
acknowledgement
ii.
Executive
Summary:
Project
Summary
Table,
Project
Description
(brief),
Evaluation
Rating
Table,
Summary
of
conclusions,
recommendations
and
lessons
iii.
Acronyms
and
Abbreviations
1.
Introduction
Purpose
of
the
evaluation,
Scope
&
Methodology,
Structure
of
the
evaluation
report
2.
Project
description
and
development
context
Project
start
and
duration,
Problems
that
the
project
sought
to
address,
Immediate
and
development
objectives
of
the
project,
Baseline
Indicators
established,
Main
stakeholders,
Expected
Results
3.
Findings
In
addition
to
a
descriptive
assessment,
all
criteria
marked
with
must
be
rated
:
3.1
Project
Design
/
Formulation
Analysis
of
Results
Framework
(Project
logic
/strategy;
Indicators);
Assumptions
and
Risks;
Lessons
from
other
relevant
projects
(e.g.,
same
focal
area)
incorporated
into
project
design;
Planned
stakeholder
participation;
Replication
approach;
UNDP
comparative
74
advantage;
linkages
between
project
and
other
interventions
within
the
sector;
Management
arrangements
3.2
Project
Implementation
Adaptive
management
(changes
to
the
project
design
and
project
outputs
during
implementation),
Partnership
arrangements
(with
relevant
stakeholders
involved
in
the
country/region),
Feedback
from
M&E
activities
used
for
adaptive
management,
Project
Finance:
Monitoring
and
evaluation:
design
at
entry
and
implementation;
UNDP
and
Implementing
Partner
implementation
/
execution
,
coordination,
and
operational
issues
3.3
Project
Results
Overall
results
(attainment
of
objectives)
,Relevance,
Effectiveness
&
Efficiency
,Country
ownership,
Mainstreaming,
Sustainability
,
Impact.
4. Conclusions,
Recommendations
&
Lessons
Corrective
actions
for
the
design,
implementation,
monitoring
and
evaluation
of
the
project,
Actions
to
follow
up
or
reinforce
initial
benefits
from
the
project,
Proposals
for
future
directions
underlining
main
objectives,
Best
and
worst
practices
in
addressing
issues
relating
to
relevance,
performance
and
success
5. ANNEXES
TOR,
Itinerary,
List
of
persons
interviewed,
Summary
of
field
visits,
List
of
documents
reviewed
Evaluation
Question
Matrix,
Questionnaire
used
and
summary
of
results,
Evaluation
Consultant
Agreement
Form,
Evaluation
Process
Documentation
report
ANNEX
6.
Evaluation
Consultant
Code
of
Conduct
Agreement
Evaluator:
1.
Must
present
information
that
is
complete
and
fair
in
its
assessment
of
strengths
and
weaknesses
so
that
decisions
or
actions
taken
are
well
founded.
2.
Must
disclose
the
full
set
of
evaluation
findings
along
with
information
on
their
limitations
and
have
this
accessible
to
all
affected
by
the
evaluation
with
expressed
legal
rights
to
receive
results.
3.
Should
protect
the
anonymity
and
confidentiality
of
individual
informants.
They
should
provide
maximum
notice,
minimize
demands
on
time,
and
respect
people’s
right
not
to
engage.
Evaluators
must
respect
people’s
right
to
provide
information
in
confidence,
and
must
ensure
that
sensitive
information
cannot
be
traced
to
its
source.
Evaluators
are
not
expected
to
evaluate
individuals,
and
must
balance
an
evaluation
of
management
functions
with
this
general
principle.
4.
Sometimes
uncover
evidence
of
wrongdoing
while
conducting
evaluations.
Such
cases
must
be
reported
discreetly
to
the
appropriate
investigative
body.
Evaluators
should
75
consult
with
other
relevant
oversight
entities
when
there
is
any
doubt
about
if
and
how
issues
should
be
reported.
5.
Should
be
sensitive
to
beliefs,
manners
and
customs
and
act
with
integrity
and
honesty
in
their
relations
with
all
stakeholders.
In
line
with
the
UN
Universal
Declaration
of
Human
Rights,
evaluators
must
be
sensitive
to
and
address
issues
of
discrimination
and
gender
equality.
They
should
avoid
offending
the
dignity
and
self-‐respect
of
those
persons
with
whom
they
come
in
contact
in
the
course
of
the
evaluation.
Knowing
that
evaluation
might
negatively
affect
the
interests
of
some
stakeholders,
evaluators
should
conduct
the
evaluation
and
communicate
its
purpose
and
results
in
a
way
that
clearly
respects
the
stakeholders’
dignity
and
self-‐worth.
6.
Are
responsible
for
their
performance
and
their
product(s).
They
are
responsible
for
the
clear,
accurate
and
fair
written
and/or
oral
presentation
of
study
imitations,
findings
and
recommendations.
7.
Should
reflect
sound
accounting
procedures
and
be
prudent
in
using
the
resources
of
the
evaluation.
Evaluation
Consultant
Agreement
Form
Agreement
to
abide
by
the
Code
of
Conduct
for
Evaluation
in
the
UN
System
Name
of
Consultant:
__________________________________________________
I
confirm
that
I
have
received
and
understood
and
will
abide
by
the
United
Nations
Code
of
Conduct
for
Evaluation.
Signed
at
(place)
on
date
Signature:
________________________________________
76
Annex
2
List
of
Documents
Reviewed
i. Approved
project
document
containing
a
brief
description
of
the
results
framework
for
the
project
ii. Work
plans
and
targets
iii. Samples
of
project’s
knowledge
products
iv. Terminal
Report
of
HLURB
v. Terminal
Report
of
NAMRIA
vi. Terminal
Report
of
MGB
vii. Terminal
Report
of
PHIVOLCS
viii. Terminal
Report
of
PAGASA
ix. Terminal
Report
of
MMDA
x. Articles
and
documents
on
past
and
on-‐going
related
or
similar
projects
(sourced
from
the
internet)
77
Annex
3
Itinerary:
Schedule
and
Type
of
Activity
Conducted
Group
of
Date/Time
Type
of
Activity
Participants/Area
April
8,
2016;
9:00
a.m.
Interview
OCD
April
14,
2016;
1:30
p.m.
Interview
PAGASA
April
15,
2016;
10:00
a.m.
Interview
HLURB
April
15,
2016;
2:00
p.m.
Interview
NAMRIA
April
18,
2016;
1:30
p.m.
Interview
CCC
May
5,
2016;
9:00
a.m.
Site
Visit
Operations
Center,
PDRRMO,
Malolos,
Bulacan
May
5,
2016;
9:30
a.m.
Focus
Group
Discussion
LGU
partners
in
Bulacan
May
5,
2016;
2:30
a.m.
Site
Visit
Tsunami
Warning
Siren,
Obando,
Bulacan
May
6,
2016;
9:00
a.m.
Site
Visit
Water
Level
Station,
Brgy.
Llarak,
Siniloan
River,
Siniloan,
Laguna
May
6,
2016;
9:30
a.m.
Site
Visit
MDRRMO
of
Mabitac,
Laguna
May
6,
2016;
10:00
a.m.
Focus
Group
Discussion
Stakeholders
in
Famy
and
Mabitac,
Laguna
May
6,
2016;
12:00
nn.
Site
Visit
Water
Level
Station,
Brgy.
Numero,
Mabitac,
Laguna
May
6,
2016;
2:00
p.m.
Site
Visit
MDRRMO
of
Sta.
Maria,
Laguna
May
6,
2016;
2:30
p.m.
Site
Visit
Water
Level
Station,
Brgy.
Coralan,
Sta.
Maria,
Laguna
May
6,
2016;
3:30
p.m.
Focus
Group
Discussion
Stakeholders
in
Sta.
Maria,
Laguna
May
10,
2016;
2:00
p.m.
Interview
UNDP
May
24,
2016;
9:00
–
Focus
Group
Discussion
Members
of
Metro
Manila
11:00
a.m.
DRRM
Council
May
24,
2016;
11:00
a.m.
Focus
Group
Discussion
Project
Implementing
–
2:00
p.m.
Partners
May
24,
2016;
2:00
p.m.
–
Focus
Group
Discussion
Metro
Manila
LGUs
5:00
p.m.
78
Annex
4
Participants
to
the
Series
of
Interview
and
Focus
Group
Discussions
Officials
Interviewed
Name
Gender
Office
1.
Evelyn
Sagun
F
PMD-‐OCD
2.
Oskar
Cruz
M
HMD-‐PAGASA
3.
Maximo
Peralta
M
HMD-‐PAGASA
4.
Socrates
Raat,
Jr.
M
HMD-‐PAGASA
5.
Mario
Miclat
M
HMD-‐PAGASA
6.
Roy
Badilla
M
HMD-‐PAGASA
7.
Sheila
Schneider
F
HMD-‐PAGASA
8.
Lena
Vergara
F
HLURB
9.
John
SF
Fabic
M
GISMB-‐NAMRIA
10.
Rosal
H.
Dolanas
F
GISMB-‐NAMRIA
11.
Donna
Lyne
Sanida
F
CCC
12.
Rjay
Mercado
M
CCC
13.
Amelia
Supetran
F
UNDP
14.
Imee
Manal
F
UNDP
15.
Charmion
Reyes
F
UNDP
FGD
Participants,
by
Group
and
Location
LGU
partners
in
Bulacan
Hiyas
Convention
Center,
City
of
Malolos,
Bulacan
May
5,
2016;
9:30
a.m
Name
Gender
Office
1.
Jerson
Resurrecion
M
SMART
2.
Andrea
Mateo
F
SMART
3.
Joseph
Belcon
M
SMART
4.
Ameerha
Ortega
F
OCD
III
5.
Rita
Claire
Libiran
F
PDRRMO
Bulacan
6.
Raul
Agustin
M
PDRRMO
Bulacan
7.
Carl
Lorenze
de
Leon
M
PDRRMO
Bulacan
8.
Lamberto
Silvestre
Sr.
M
PDRRMO
Bulacan
9.
Bryan
Velasco
M
PDRRMO
Bulacan
10.
Jennifer
Ongleo
F
PDRRMO
Bulacan
11.
Jerry
Villoso
M
MDRRMO
Obando
12.
Paulito
Mendoza
M
MDRRMO
Obando
79
13.
Rhea
Ann
Oronce
F
MDRRMO
Obando
14.
Pia
D.
Pedro
F
CDRRMO
Malolos
15.
Antonio
Sapasap,
Jr.
M
CDRRMO
Malolos
16.
Edgar
Rodriguez
M
CDRRMO
Malolos
17.
Arnel
Penuller
M
CDRRMO
Malolos
18.
Gina
Tolentino-‐Ayson
F
CDRRMO
SJDM
19.
Margaritte
Lynn
G.
Martinez
F
CDRRMO
SJDM
20.
Loreto
Bodiao,
Jr.
M
CDRRMO
SJDM
21.
Remilio
Bautista
M
PAGASA
22.
Maximo
Peralta
M
PAGASA
23.
Alvin
Mendez
M
OCD
24.
Evelyn
Sagun
F
OCD
Stakeholders
in
Famy
and
Mabitac,
Laguna
Barangay
Hall,
Barangay
Lambac,
Mabitac,
Laguna
May
6,
2016;
10:00
a.m.
Name
Gender
Office
1.
Mariveth
Razon
F
MDRRMO
Famy
2.
Jane
Karen
Abary
F
MDRRMO
Famy
3.
Katrina
D.
Vergara
F
Office
of
Mun.
Mayor,
Famy
4.
Gerwin
Jolo
M
PDRRMO
Laguna
5.
Jeartuel
Javier
M
PDRRMO
Laguna
6.
Manny
Artitchea
M
MDRRMO
Mabitac
7.
Racquel
Destura
F
MDRRMO
Mabitac
8.
Marcos
Bocacao,
Sr.
M
MDRRMO
Mabitac
9.
Rafael
Martin
Aguilar
M
MDRRMO
Mabitac
10.
Allan
Pedron
M
MDRRMO
Mabitac
11.
Wilson
Peret
M
Brgy
Lambac
12.
Henrico
Ortiz
M
Brgy
Lambac
13.
Alfonso
Pascedan
M
Brgy
Lambac
14.
Aileen
Kalualhatian
F
Brgy
Lambac
15.
Maryrose
Rubiabas
F
Brgy
Lambac
16.
Cherry
Tan
F
Brgy
Lambac
17.
Glenda
Hermosura
F
Brgy
Lambac
18.
Rodolfo
Oribo
M
Brgy
Lambac
19.
Amy
Bocacao
F
Brgy
Lambac
20.
Sarah
Katigbac
F
Brgy
Lambac
21.
Astral
Lopez
F
Brgy
Lambac
22.
Marilou
Malihan
F
Brgy
Lambac
23.
Consolacion
Lonnesa
F
Brgy
Lambac
24.
Rosalinda
Raz
F
Brgy
Lambac
25.
Richard
Palomique
M
Brgy
Lambac
26.
Raymond
Banaag
M
Brgy
Lambac
27.
Remilio
Bautista
M
PAGASA
80
28.
Maximo
Peralta
M
PAGASA
29.
Lorenzo
Haveria
M
OCD
IV-‐A
30.
Jayson
Jacob
M
OCD
IV-‐A
31.
Alvin
Mendez
M
OCD
32.
Evelyn
Sagun
F
OCD
Stakeholders
in
Sta.
Maria,
Laguna
Barangay
Hall,
Barangay
Coralan,
Sta.
Maria,
Laguna
May
6,
2016;
3:00
p.m.
Name
Gender
Office
1.
Arturo
Bonifacio
M
MDRRMO
Sta.
Maria
2.
Jay
de
Chavez
M
MDRRMO
Sta.
Maria
3.
Gerwin
Jolo
M
PDRRMO
Laguna
4.
Jeartuel
Javier
M
PDRRMO
Laguna
5.
Jimson
Evagelista
M
PDRRMO
Laguna
6.
Renato
Pontipedra
M
Brgy.
Coralan,
Sta.
Maria
7.
Romeo
Panganiban
M
Brgy.
Coralan,
Sta.
Maria
8.
Narciso
Katigbak
M
Brgy.
Coralan,
Sta.
Maria
9.
Antonio
Lalusin
M
Brgy.
Coralan,
Sta.
Maria
10.
Cecilia
Bonifacio
F
Brgy.
Coralan,
Sta.
Maria
11.
Reynante
dela
Cruz
M
Brgy.
Coralan,
Sta.
Maria
12.
Fernando
Tampis
M
Brgy.
Calangay,
Sta.
Maria
13.
Romulo
Bautista
M
Brgy.
Calangay,
Sta.
Maria
14.
Ruben
Villanueva
M
Brgy.
Calangay,
Sta.
Maria
15.
Wilfredo
Aranda
M
Brgy.
Calangay,
Sta.
Maria
16.
Leonardo
Garcia
M
Brgy.
Calangay,
Sta.
Maria
17.
Virgilio
Cornejo
M
Brgy.
Calangay,
Sta.
Maria
18.
Juanito
Harina
M
Brgy.
Calangay,
Sta.
Maria
19.
Florentina
dela
Cruz
F
Brgy.
Inayapan,
Sta.
Maria
20.
Justo
Masalonga
M
Brgy.
Inayapan,
Sta.
Maria
21.
Pedro
Marasigan
M
Brgy.
Inayapan,
Sta.
Maria
22.
Edwin
Padilla
M
Brgy.
Inayapan,
Sta.
Maria
23.
Freddie
Manalo
M
Brgy.
Inayapan,
Sta.
Maria
24.
Welfredo
Laluniyo
M
Brgy.
Inayapan,
Sta.
Maria
25.
Remilio
Bautista
M
PAGASA
26.
Maximo
Peralta
M
PAGASA
27.
Lorenzo
Haveria
M
OCD
IV-‐A
28.
Jayson
Jacob
M
OCD
IV-‐A
29.
Alvin
Mendez
M
OCD
30.
Evelyn
Sagun
F
OCD
81
Members
of
Metro
Manila
DRRM
Council
OCD
Conference
Hall,
Camp
Aguinaldo,
Quezon
City
May
24,
2016;
9:00
–
11:00
a.m.
Name
Gender
Office
1.
Jose
Mari
Castro,
MD
M
DOH-‐NCR
2.
Mylyn
dela
Cruz
F
DOH-‐NCR
3.
Rosela
V.
Astudilo
F
DOH-‐NCR
4.
Manuel
Gonzales
M
MMDA
5.
Eduardo
Santos
M
DPWH-‐NCR
6.
Jocelyn
Cepeda
F
PNP-‐NCRPO
7.
Noel
Bunag
M
PNP-‐NCRPO
Implementing
Partners
OCD
Conference
Hall,
Camp
Aguinaldo,
Quezon
City
May
24,
2016;
11:00
a.m.
–
2:00
p.m.
Name
Gender
Office
1.
Erlinton
Olavere
M
PHIVOLCS
2.
Ma.
Elenita
Consto
F
MGB
3.
Jocelyn
Villanueva
F
MGB
4.
Precilla
L.
Brucal
F
HLURB
5.
John
Vher
Soriano
M
HLURB
6.
Lena
Vergara
F
HLURB
7.
Rosal
Dolanas
F
NAMRIA
8.
John
Fabic
M
NAMRIA
9.
Ma.
Josefina
Faulan
F
MMDA
10.
Oshean
Lee
Ganorita
M
MMDA
11.
Shiela
Gail
Satura-‐Quingco
F
MMDA
12.
Luisa
Anoganega
F
MMDA
13.
Aiere
Margarette
Lozada
F
MMDA
14.
Edna
Conda
F
OCD-‐NCR
15.
Donna
Sanidad
F
CCC
Metro
Manila
LGUs
OCD
Conference
Hall,
Camp
Aguinaldo,
Quezon
City
May
24,
2016;
11:00
a.m.
–
2:00
p.m.
Name
Gender
Office
1.
Ian
Dennis
Cruz
M
CPDO
Las
Pinas
City
2.
Armando
Aguilar
M
CPDO
Las
Pinas
City
3.
Alfred
Pascual
M
CPDO
Las
Pinas
City
4.
Bryan
Dularte
M
CPDO
Las
Pinas
City
5.
Janrose
Bravo
F
Las
Pinas
City
DRRMO
6.
Dennis
Reyes
M
Las
Pinas
City
DRRMO
7.
Jan
Javilinar
M
Las
Pinas
City
DRRMO
82
8.
Cindy
Garcia
F
QC
DRRMO
9.
Daisy
A.
Flores
F
QC
DRRMO
10.
Matthew
Bermudo
M
San
Juan
DRRMO
11.
Cyril
Gonzalodo
M
Muntinlupa
DRRMO
12.
Jeffrey
Lomonitad
M
Muntinlupa
DRRMO
13.
Jose
David
Adriano
M
LGU
Muntinlupa
14.
May
Ladica
F
LGU
Muntinlupa
15.
Arnaldo
Antonio
M
Valenzuela
City
DRRMO
16.
Aurora
Ciego
F
Caloocan
City
Planning
17.
Jonathan
Himala
M
Caloocan
City
Planning
18.
Vivian
Roque
F
Caloocan
City
DRRMO
19.
Caroline
Viray
F
Mandaluyong
City
DRRMO
20.
Jedgard
Cabrera
M
Malabon
City
DRRMO
21.
Leomar
dela
Cruz
M
Malabon
City
DRRMO
22.
Solomon
Manzano
m
Malabon
City
DRRMO
23.
Jose
Damian
M
CPDCO
Paranaque
24.
Zareena
Lamberte
F
DRRMO
Paranaque
25.
Romeo
Pascual
M
CPDO
Navotas
City
26.
Marlyn
Lazaro
F
CPDO
Navotas
City
27.
Daniel
Francis
Pascual
M
CPDO
Navotas
City
28.
Pepito
Sammago
M
CPDO
Navotas
City
29.
Xiera
Rose
F
OCD-‐NDRRMO
83
Annex
5
Guide
Questions
to
Interview
and
Focus
Group
Discussions
1. Are
the
objectives
of
the
project
clear?
Have
you
ever
had
any
problem
understanding
it?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
2. Is
the
design
of
the
project
clear?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
3. How
would
you
assess
the
participation
of
your
Agency
in
the
Project?
What
were
the
problems
or
constraints
that
you
have
encountered,
if
any?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
4. What
were
the
specific
activities
your
Agency
participated
in
or
outputs
it
has
delivered
for
the
Project?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
5. From
your
perspective,
has
the
Project
attained
its
objectives
and
delivered
its
committed
outputs?
Why
or
why
not?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
6. What
were
the
factors
that
contributed
to
the
success
of
the
Project?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
7. What
were
the
hindering
factors
in
the
implementation
of
the
project?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
84
8. What
mechanisms
that
had
been
or
should
be
put
in
place
or
should
be
maintain
so
that
the
gains
of
the
project
could
be
sustained?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
9. What
mechanisms
that
had
been
or
should
be
put
in
place
or
should
be
maintain
so
that
the
gains
of
the
project
could
be
replicated?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
10.
Please
provide
additional
comments,
if
any,
on
any
aspect
of
the
Project,
its
implementation,
and
its
overall
management
mechanisms
and
procedures.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
85
Annex
6
Summary
of
Responses
to
Interview
and
Focus
Group
Discussions
Are
the
objectives
of
the
project
clear?
Have
you
ever
had
any
problem
understanding
it?
• The
objectives
of
the
project
which
are
embodied
in
outputs
1
and
5
of
the
project
document
are
clear.
• Yes.
• The
objectives
of
the
project
are
clear.
We
do
not
have
any
problem
understanding
it.
• Yes
and
No.
No
because
the
support
of
the
Department
for
this
project
is
not
sufficient
because
of
the
funds
that
we
are
receiving
are
limited.
• Clear
especially
the
objectives
of
the
Oplan
Yakal
Plus,
and
the
intents
of
formulating
the
contingency
plan
for
Metro
Manila.
• Everything
is
clear.
• Component
4
on
mainstreaming
is
clear.
• Original
project
document
is
also
clear.
My
agency
signed
it.
• Clear
objectives
of
the
project.
• No
issues
on
the
objectives
of
the
project.
• The
objectives
of
the
project
are
clear,
even
the
community
can
use
the
information
material
easily,
especially
if
they
will
be
aught
on
the
reason
and
the
proper
understanding
of
it.
• The
design
and
objectives
are
clear.
• The
project
drew
the
members
of
the
DRRMC
(for
QC)
closer
and
enhanced
camaraderie.
• At
the
start
of
the
project,
the
project
document
and
the
objectives
of
the
project
were
not
clear,
but
as
time
goes
by,
they
became
clearer.
This
is
because
the
project
is
a
new
thing
to
us
and
to
the
LGU.
• Initially,
it
was
not
clear
and
very
difficult
to
understand.
Eventually,
it
became
clearer
and
easier
to
understand
what
the
project
intends
to
accomplish.
• Not
clear
at
the
start.
• Yes,
but
at
first
it
wasn’t.
Since
we
participated
in
the
project
only
by
2/3,
if
I’m
not
mistaken;
we
won’t
have
any
idea
of
the
extent
of
the
project.
• The
Project’s
(GMMA
READY)
objectives
were
clear
and
we
don’t
have
any
problem
understanding
it.
86
Is
the
design
of
the
project
clear?
• Yes.
• Yes,
the
design
of
the
project
is
very
clear
and
self-‐explanatory.
• Everything
is
clear.
• My
agency
focused
on
the
project
document
for
guidance.
• The
design
of
the
project
is
clear
that
it
can
help
us
(LGU)
to
learn
and
to
make
up
management
plan
before
a
major
incident
or
hazard
hit
a
certain
area
of
our
AOR.
• Yes,
but
only
towards
the
end
of
the
project.
• Having
been
chosen
as
one
of
the
pilot
cities
to
do
the
Mainstreaming
of
DRR/CCA
in
the
CLUP,
it
was
a
bit
difficult
at
the
start
since
the
guidelines
for
the
preparation
was
not
yet
available
during
that
time.
But
as
we
go
along
the
project,
we
learned
to
appreciate
and
understand
it
and
came
up
with
the
expected
result.
Technical
assistance
and
logistical
support
was
provided
by
our
partner
the
MMDA
as
well
as
from
other
agencies
involved
in
the
GMMA
READY
Project.
How
would
you
assess
the
participation
of
your
Agency
in
the
Project?
What
were
the
problems
or
constraints
that
you
have
encountered,
if
any?
• MGB
has
been
participating
actively
in
all
the
activities
of
the
GMMA
READY
project.
Some
specific
setbacks
were
encountered
specifically
logistical
problems
in
the
IEC
activities
but
these
were
all
taken
care
of
which
the
assistance
of
the
NDRRMC.
Problems
in
paper
work
were
addressed
by
hiring
an
assistant
who
was
eventually
absorbed
by
MGB.
• NAMRIA
was
able
to
meet
the
necessary
technical
support
for
the
project,
i.e.,
technical
staff,
training,
and
data.
However,
one
the
constraints
encountered
is
the
availability
of
updated
base
maps
for
the
project
area.
• Our
agency
has
a
very
important
role
in
formulating
this
GMMA
READY
Project,
by
providing
important
data,
information
and
documents.
This
will
help
our
agency
to
prepare
for
the
Big
One,
plan
what
needs
to
be
planned,
involve
our
partners/stakeholders,
and
other
regions
that
will
help/augment
during
said
disaster.
• Constraint:
RA
9184
–
Procurement
Law,
especially
during
actual
disasters.
• Oplan
Yakal
Plus
• Formulation
and
updating
of
the
contingency
plan
for
Metro
Manila.
• Constraints:
Level
of
participation
of
some
agencies
was
low;
there’s
the
reluctance
of
some
agencies
in
getting
their
agencies
involved
in
the
project;
there
was
still
a
need
to
push
them
to
act
(kulit).
• Some
agencies
cannot
understand;
they
want
to
do
things
by
themselves
alone,
even
if
specific
roles
and
responsibilities
have
already
been
delineated.
• Radios
available
at
the
agency
(PNP)
are
limited,
outdated
and
antiquated;
these
may
not
be
able
to
respond
to
the
needs
when
disasters
occur.
• Constraint:
Competing
and
conflicting
schedules,
demands
and
work
at
the
office.
87
• Bigger
scale
of
maps
is
not
available.
This
could
have
made
outputs
more
accurate.
• Collaboration
with
HLURB
in
the
conduct
of
activities
of
my
agency.
My
agency
provided
technical
assistance
in
the
delivery
of
land
use
component,
together
with
HLURB.
We
had
to
divide
the
work
by
chapter
to
facilitate
the
formulation
of
plans.
• At
MMDA,
DRRM
is
still
being
developed.
The
original
design
have
to
be
redone
to
take
into
consideration
the
sharing
of
responsibility
between
MMDA
and
HLURB.
Funding
had
also
been
shared.
• Involvement
includes
participation
in
meetings,
seminars
and
project
activities.
• Direct
encounter
with
NAMRIA
and
other
CSCAND
agencies.
• Constraints:
LGUs
cannot
interpret
maps;
how
to
put
gains
on
the
ground.
• Problem
encountered:
problems
raised
got
no
feedback
from
OCD/PMO;
communication
protocols
especially
with
bosses
for
major
project
concerns
were
not
properly
observed;
sometimes,
agencies
need
formal
communication
from
OCD/PMO
for
proper
channeling,
but
OCD/PMO
preferred
informal
channels,
i.e.,
emails,
which
may
not
be
a
bit
proper
for
key
officials
of
the
agencies.
• There
had
been
delays
in
the
release
of
funds
which
rendered
some
LGUs
and
the
MMDA
unable
to
conduct
their
activities.
• Agency
(MMDA)
used
its
funds
to
support
activities
when
funds
are
not
released
on
time;
there
had
been
occasions
where
funds
spent
by
agencies
were
not
reimbursed
on
time.
• Problem:
the
request
for
salary
increase
of
personnel
came
or
was
given
a
go
by
PMO
much
later;
the
highlights
of
the
meeting
when
this
concern
was
raised
came
5
months
later,
hence,
action
was
delayed.
• By
means
of
a
thorough
IEC
at
the
community
level.
• Problems
are
minimal
such
as
how
to
communicate
to
the
community
on
how
it
would
be
rolled
out
to
them.
• Productive
engagement
in
the
preparation
of
IEC
and
seminars.
• Problem:
how
to
communicate
GMMA
READY
at
the
community
level.
• Agency/office
willing
to
advance
funds
or
use
own
resources.
• Strong
camaraderie
of
members
from
the
LGU.
• Outputs
required
were
delivered.
• Participation
of
the
council
(local
DRRMC)
was
difficult
because
things
were
not
clear.
Schedules
were
conflicting;
difficulty
in
coordination;
no
cohesion;
and
hard
to
incorporate
new
information
and
data
into
existing
plans.
• Difficulties:
formulation
of
plans
with
new
guidelines,
new
set
of
data.
• Formation
of
DRRMC/O
at
the
LGU
is
a
new
thing;
quite
difficult
at
first.
Limited
personnel.
Office
is
yet
to
be
institutionalized.
• Preparation
of
CP
and
CLUP.
• Office
was
engaged
in
meetings,
trainings
and
in
coordinating
activities
at
the
community
level.
• Trainings
done
were
down
to
earth;
rolled
down
to
the
community
level;
appreciation
was
vital,
especially
at
the
homeowners’
level.
88
• Office
was
engaged
in
the
preparation
of
CLUP
and
CP
(LGU).
The
project
(PMO)
has
been
very
helpful
and
facilitative.
Technical
review
of
outputs
was
extended
by
MMDA
and
HLURB
–
they
were
also
very
helpful.
• Hazard
Maps
were
useful
–
they
helped
us
(LGU)
in
getting
a
seal
of
governance
from
DILG,
particularly
for
disaster
preparedness.
• Office
was
engaged
in
trainings,
seminars
and
workshops.
Because
of
conflicting
workloads
of
staff,
different
personnel
were
sent
to
attend
these;
hence,
there
was
a
bit
a
problem
of
continuity.
But
the
good
thing,
more
staff
were
trained.
• Because
the
process
is
new,
staff
were
confused
at
the
start.
• Data
and
information
needed
for
the
preparation
of
plans
were
not
yet
available
at
the
start;
no
basis
yet
for
risk
assessment.
• Work
was
facilitated
with
the
assistance
of
MMDA
and
HLURB.
• Full
support
of
the
office.
• Constraints
and
problems:
shifting
assignments
of
staff.
• Constraining
factor:
long
time
in
securing
travel
orders
at
the
agency
level.
Strict
policies
of
the
office.
• Space
in
the
office
is
limited.
• Budgetary
constraints
in
duplicating
and
cascading
the
project
down
to
the
barangay
and
community.
• Information
constraints
such
as
in
the
flood
modelling,
Paranaque
wasn’t
part
of
the
flood
study.
Like
south
cities,
our
flood
risk
maps
were
not
very
detailed.
But
we
made
po.
• Our
agency
fully
participated
in
project
from
our
top
management
as
well
as
with
all
the
offices/departments
involved.
In
fact,
we
are
very
thankful
for
the
support
we
got
from
the
project.
The
only
constraint
we
have
is
the
time
factor,
like
how
we
were
going
divide
our
time
in
doing
the
project
and
at
the
same
time
in
doing
our
regular/official
tasks.
What
were
the
specific
activities
your
Agency
participated
in
or
outputs
it
has
delivered
for
the
Project?
• 100%
accomplishment
of
outputs
required
(MGB)
• Provision
of
base
map
of
Metro
Manila
and
the
provinces
of
Bulacan,
Rizal,
Laguna
and
Cavite
including
the
validation
of
barangay
boundaries
• Layouting
of
printing
of
hazard
maps
• Provision
of
GIS
training
to
implementing
partners
• List
of
hospitals,
government
and
private
• Policies,
protocols
and
guidelines
• List
of
manpower,
logistics
and
approximate
amount
needed
• List
of
possible
responding
regions
• Earthquake
drills
and
development
of
Oplan
Yakal
Plus.
• Preparation
of
contingency
plan
for
Metro
Manila.
• The
formulation
of
the
quadrants;
engagement
of
private,
international;
89
establishment
of
respond
protocols;
clustering
of
LGUs
and
agencies.
• MMDA
assisted
2
LGUs
for
the
formulation
of
CLUP;
and
assisted
17
other
municipalities
in
some
activities
on
mainstreaming.
The
Guidelines
on
DRRM
was
useful.
• Pilot
LGUs
assigned
to
MMDA
were
selected
through
a
set
of
criteria.
• Constraint:
the
project
demanded
as
big
amount
of
time
to
the
agency;
competed
with
other
priorities
of
LGUs
and
other
requirements
of
DILG;
and
too
difficult
to
participate
in
activities
(workshops)
conducted
outside
Metro
Manila.
• Formulation
of
land
use
plans.
• Formulation
of
supplemental
guidelines
on
land
use
plan
formulation;
provided
assistance
to
LGUs
in
the
preparation
of
Zoning
Ordinances
that
incorporated
DRM
and
CCA;
LGUs
have
to
learn
techniques.
• HLURB
moved
closer
to
LGUs.
• Installation
of
tsunami
sirens;
touched
based
with
the
communities.
• Installation
of
KM-‐CoP
linked
to
150
cities.IEC
caravan.
• Attendance
to
TWG
meetings
and
seminars
and
conduct
IEC
at
the
community
level,
• Formulation
of
different
strategies
that
GMMA
READY
Project
needs.
• Preparation
of
CLUP,
integrating
DRM
and
CRM.
Inputs
on
risk
assessment.
Allowed
innovation
in
the
preparation
of
zoning
ordinance.
• Contingency
plan
completed.
• We
participated
in
the
creation
of
risk
maps
as
well
as
the
hazard
and
vulnerability
assessment.
From
here,
outputs
were
the
contingency
plans
and
comprehensive
land
use
plan
(on-‐going)
that
is
CCA/DRRM
sensitive.
• We
(CPDO)
are
the
lead
department
in
crafting
the
DRR/CCA
Mainstreamed
CLUP
and
Zoning
Ordinance
and
we
also
partnered
with
the
Local
Disaster
Risk
Reduction
and
Management
Office
(LDRRMO)
in
crafting
our
city’s
Contingency
Plan
for
Earthquake
and
Flood.
From
your
perspective,
has
the
Project
attained
its
objectives
and
delivered
its
committed
outputs?
Why
or
why
not?
• Early
warning
devices
were
produced
–
by
Filipino
manufacturer.
• Yes,
MGB
has
attained
its
objectives
and
delivered
its
committed
outputs.
• Yes.
• I
think
we
attained
its
objectives
and
delivered
its
committed
outputs
because
all
of
the
resources
of
every
responding
agency
are
included
in
the
plan
and
they
commit
themselves
in
mobilizing
this
if
needed.
• Coordination/collaboration
is
clearly
indicated
in
this
Project,
as
well
as
who
will
be
the
responsible
and
responding
agencies
and
regions.
• Yes,
it
triggered
the
awareness.
• Yes,
and
it
also
provided
a
learning
opportunity
for
the
technical
staff
of
the
agency,
especially
in
land
use
planning.
Likewise,
the
management
got
involved
in
90
the
process.
• Guidelines
were
more
on
DRM
and
not
so
much
on
CCA.
• Capacitated
LGUs;
enabling
CLUPs
with
DRRM
and
CCA
parameters.
• Yes
the
project
attained
its
purpose,
the
achievement
of
every
LGU
to
have
a
zero
casualty
or
on
its
most
minimal
moves
that
the
project
is
so
effective.
• Participation
of
homeowners’
association.
• Yes,
the
outputs
have
succeeded
its
objectives.
Outputs
have
not
only
produced
meaningful
plans
but
it
has
increased
awareness.
• Yes
it
did,
the
project
supported
us
in
every
aspect
of
the
planning
process
from
the
very
start
up
to
completion
of
the
plans.
The
project
provided
us
with
all
the
necessary
technical
and
logistic
support.
What
were
the
factors
that
contributed
to
the
success
of
the
Project?
• Guidance
and
support
of
NDRRMC.
• Availability
of
technical
personnel
during
the
initial
phase
of
the
project
which
involved
actual
mapping
activities
• Support
from
the
regional
offices
of
MGB,
particularly
Regions
3
and
4A.
• PMO’s
efficiency
• Factors
contributed
to
the
success
of
this
project
are
the
following:
(a)
participation
of
all
government
agencies
and
LGUs;
and
(b)
their
commitment
to
help
and
share
what
we
have
in
our
department.
• Participation
of
all
concerned
agencies
and
LGUs.
• Strong
coordination;
continuous
monitoring
of
activities
and
the
conduct
of
activities,
meetings
and
conferences
which
all
involved
private
sector,
national
government
agencies
and
LGUs.
• Awareness,
effective
campaign,
information
and
education
campaign
activities.
• Coordination,
collaboration
and
camaraderie
among
agencies.
• Formulation
and
implementation
of
activities
together
by
agencies.
• Effective
information
and
feedback
to
superiors;
hence,
getting
the
necessary
management
support.
• Commitment
of
personnel.
• Sharing
of
information.
• Political
will
of
OCD
and
partner
agencies.
• Willingness
of
some
government
officials
to
use
their
discretionary
funds
to
support
activities
of
the
project.
• Cooperation
among
concerned
agencies,
e.g.,
HLURB
and
MMDA,
in
land
use
planning.
• Fund
availability;
funds
were
made
available
by
OCD.
• Availability
of
technical
assistance:
CSCAND
agencies;
risk
analysis
and
the
REDAS.
• Overall
management
of
the
project
by
OCD;
fast
down
load
of
funds
to
agencies;
provision
of
equipment
–
printers,
plotters,
inks,
papers
and
other
supplies
and
91
materials;
procurement
processes
made
easy.
• Cooperation
of
agencies
and
LGUs
• GMMA
project
has
a
good
reputation
among
key
officials;
hence,
top
management
officials
easily
and
favorably
considered
requests
for
engagements.
• Strong
support
and
partnership
with
and
among
the
CSCAND
agencies.
• CSCAND
agencies
are
easy
to
get
support
from
even
beyond
their
TOR
in
the
project.
• PMO
very
helpful
and
supportive;
provided
assistance
in
coordinating
with
LGUs;
financial
requirements
for
activities
were
responded
to.
• Fund
management
practice
is
commendable
=
output-‐based
rather
than
by
activity.
Agencies
were
given
elbow
rooms
and
lee
ways
to
manage
their
own
funds
for
as
long
as
they
deliver
the
outputs
expected
of
them.
• Some
LGUs
provided
“equity”
to
the
project
in
terms
of
materials
and
personnel.
• Neat
handling
of
the
project
by
the
PMO;
PMO
has
been
on
hands-‐on
mode
throughout
the
implementation
of
the
project;
PMO
established
rapport
with
the
agencies
and
LGUs.
• The
proper
dissemination,
coordination
and
cooperation
of
all
stakeholders
have
contributed
tit
e
success
of
the
project.
• Flexible
processes
• Close
relationship
–
PMO
and
LGUs;
and
members
of
the
DRRMC
(QC).
• Willingness
of
members
to
use
their
own
resources
(vehicles).
• Evelyn
Sagun
very
facilitative.
• Agency/office
willing
to
spend
money
or
advance
funds.
• Guidelines
are
comprehensive;
very
useful.
• Engagement
of
homeowners’
associations
• Awareness
of
other
agencies.
• Synchronized
activities
among
agencies.
• Complementation
among
members
of
the
local
council.
• Full
support
of
the
office.
• Data
are
made
available
–
hazard
and
vulnerability.
• Proactive
stance
of
the
local
government
(QC).
• Willingness
to
shell
out
funds
for
activities.
• Availability
of
disaster
funds
at
the
local
level.
5%
of
the
local
budget.
• Initiative
of
the
barangays
in
providing
funds
and
equipment
for
community
use.
• Engagement
of
NGO
to
maintain
the
facilities
provided
(Portrero,
Malabon).
• Political
will.
• Existing
department
–
the
Department
of
Order
and
Safety
• Permanent
personnel
manning
the
office.
• Willingness
of
the
city
to
invest
(QC).
• Passion.
• Participation
of
LGUs
and
unwavering
support
of
project
proponents.
• The
partnership,
acceptance,
willingness
and
commitment
of
all
parties
involved
contributed
to
the
success
of
the
project.
The
partnership
between
the
GMMA
READY
through
its
partner
agencies
such
as
the
MMDA.
HLURB,
OCD
etc.
and
the
92
LGUs
made
the
project
possible.
The
acceptance
that
we
are
facing
the
“real”
challenge
of
natural
disasters
and
climate
change
and
that
we
have
to
do
something
about
it.
The
willingness
to
participate
in
the
project
and
the
commitment
to
finish
and
implement
the
final
outputs.
What
were
the
hindering
factors
in
the
implementation
of
the
project?
• Inability
of
the
contractor
in
delivering
the
facilities
(warning
devices)
needed
on
time.
• There
were
actually
no
hindering
factors
although
problems
related
to
compliance
were
encountered,
e.g.,
meeting
of
deadlines
for
the
conduct
of
some
activities
or
submission
of
reports
on
time.
This
was
an
effect
of
the
exodus
of
technical
personnel
to
the
private
sector
and
other
government
agencies
during
the
latter
part
of
the
project.
• Sometimes,
CSCAND
staff
are
not
available
during
meetings
and
activities
of
the
project.
• Time
consuming
(need
almost
full-‐time
support)
• The
hindering
factors
are
the
time
schedule
of
each
agency
during
the
workshops/writeshops
and
different
people
attending/representing
during
the
formulation
of
this
project.
• Limited
political
will.
• Insufficient
information
from
other
agencies.
• Reluctance
of
some
government
agencies
and
LGUs
to
participate.
• Weak
political
will
of
some
government
agencies
and
LGUs.
• Bulk
of
work
in
the
office.
Low
level
of
commitment
of
some
people
in
the
office.
• Mode
of
employment
of
personnel
trained
–
job
order/casual
–
50%.
• No
benefits
for
personnel
hired
under
job
order.
• Scheduling
of
activities
–
not
fixed;
changing.
• 10-‐day
rule
for
travel
orders
to
get
signed
by
approving
authority.
• People
support
is
limited;
likewise,
limited
pool
of
experts
to
tap
for
the
implementation
of
activities.
• Too
many
meetings
and
demands
coming
from
the
different
components.
• Writing
skills
of
LGUs
• Delays
due
to
changes
of
leadership
at
the
LGU
level
after
the
local
elections
in
2013.
• Counterparts
of
LGUs
were
not
programmed;
hence,
at
some
points,
not
provided;
some
LGUs
are
resistant
to
cooperate.
• The
only
hindering
factor
is
how
to
make
the
community
believe
that
the
project
will
be
useful
to
them.
• COA
and
the
procurement
process.
• No
additional
remunerations.
• LGU
difficulties:
write-‐up,
will
power
to
do
things
up,
other
tasks
in
their
offices,
not
attentive
during
trainings,
not
too
serious
during
training.
93
• Limited
availability
of
funds
and
policies
that
can
support
the
project
as
well
as
political
will.
• We
would
like
to
think
of
it
more
as
“challenges”
rather
than
hindering
factors.
One
would
be
the
“political
will”
in
implementing
the
project.
Second
is
the
acceptance
of
all
the
stakeholders
once
the
project
is
implemented.
What
mechanisms
that
had
been
or
should
be
put
in
place
or
should
be
maintain
so
that
the
gains
of
the
project
could
be
sustained?
• Continuous
IEC
and
capability
enhancement
of
LGUs
• Continuous
updating
of
the
1:5,000
scale
susceptibility
maps
of
GMMA
• Continuous
cooperation
among
CSCAND
agencies
on
DRRM
projects,
such
as
the
improvement
of
the
REDAS
module
on
floods,
and
later
on
landslides,
and
various
aspects
in
hazard
risk
analysis
(including
exposure
database
development,
vulnerability
studies).
• Science-‐based
V
and
A
(methodology)
to
produce
the
thematic
maps
for
use
by
LGUs
• The
mechanisms
that
should
be
put
in
place
or
should
be
maintained
so
that
the
gains
of
the
project
could
be
sustained
are
regularly
reviewing
and
updating
of
the
plan
(contingency
plan)
if
there
is
a
need
to
amend
or
add
in
the
plan,
especially
the
directory
part;
testing
its
applicability
and
accuracy
during
the
quarterly
earthquake
drills
and
by
giving
copies
to
all
concerned
agencies.
• Regular
practice
and
meetings
and
review
of
plans.
• Outsource
equipment
from
private
sector.
• Enter
into
MOA
with
private
sector
for
the
immediate
provision
of
supplies
during
emergencies
without
necessarily
going
through
the
procurement
process
as
provided
by
the
Procurement
Law.
• Continuous
training
of
personnel
on
rescue
and
evacuation.
• Further
develop
the
sense
of
nationalism.
• Regular
updating
of
plans.
• Increase
political
will
–
especially
at
the
local
level.
• Review
and
amend
contingency
plan,
when
necessary.
• Proper
endorsement
of
outgoing
leadership
to
the
incoming
one.
• Involve
Commission
of
Audit
so
that
rules
can
be
made
more
responsive
during
times
of
emergencies.
• Dissemination
of
information
and
outputs
of
the
project.
• Provision
of
more
funds
for
the
procurement
of
supplies
and
materials
and
to
provide
allowances
for
personnel.
• Review
of
contingency
plans
of
LGUs,
and
undertake
revision
when
necessary.
• Continuous
conduct
of
simulation
exercises.
• Turn
over
of
all
documents
to
assisted
LGUs.
• Ensure
radio
inter-‐operationability
among
responding
agencies
and
LGUs.
• Improve
communication
exchange
among
agencies.
94
• LGUs
to
take
on
the
responsibility
for
maintenance
of
installed
facilities;
e.g.,
changing
of
batteries
and
providing
for
loads.
• Installation
of
signages
• Institutionalization
of
project
gains
at
the
national
level.
• Establishment
of
full-‐time
department
to
coordinate
the
activities.
• Passage
of
law
or
policy
to
implement
similar
activities
at
all
levels
of
government.
• Inclusion
of
“adaptation
strategy”
as
one
of
the
mechanisms
to
counter
the
effects
of
disaster.
This
should
be
explored,
especially
in
the
guidelines.
• Data
and
information
should
be
shared
through
the
CCC
and
the
ICTO
of
DOST.
• Geo-‐tag
all
information
generated
by
the
CCC
under
the
project.
Link
to
the
Phil
Geoportal
• Revival
of
GIS
at
MMDA.
• Continue
KM-‐CoP;
further
promote
the
CoP;
more
interactive
linkages
of
agencies
through
the
CoP.
• CCC
needs
to
invest
on
computers
and
other
IT
equipment
(maintenance),
continuous
training
of
personnel,
transfer
of
knowledge,
engagement
of
top
management.
• Equipment/facility
installed
by
PHIVOLCS,
e.g.,
tsunami
siren,
will
be
maintained
by
LGUs
with
oversight
and
supervision
of
PHIVOLCS.
• Updating
of
the
contingency
plan
of
each
barangay
• Continuous
training
and
seminar
at
the
community
level.
• Involvement
of
barangay
in
disaster
preparedness.
• Mainstream
CLUP
and
CP
as
continuing
activity
of
the
council
(local
DRRMC).
• Continue
to
use
data
(H&V)
in
the
formulation
of
LCCAP
at
the
barangay
and
residential
levels.
• Strengthen
barangay
level
on
DRRM.
Deepening
of
appreciation.
Provide
assistance.
• Consider
the
integration
of
engineering
and
DRRM,
especially
in
terms
of
water
catchment,
road
elevation,
retrofitting
and
regulation
of
structures
as
well
as
in
other
related
ordinances.
• Involve
the
office
of
the
Building
Official.
• Promote
community
adaptation
and
resiliency
to
disaster
since
it
might
already
be
hard
to
relocate
them.
• Undertake
audit
of
infrastructure
and
their
fit
to
the
Big
One.
• Upgrading
of
knowledge
–
science-‐based.
• Community
PPAs,
better
system
for
disbursing
of
funds,
and
implementation
of
policies
to
support
program.
• The
projects,
CLUP
and
CP
shouldn’t
stop
upon
its
completion,
it
must
be
implemented
and
after
certain
period
of
time
revisited,
update
or
revise
if
necessary.
95
What
mechanisms
that
had
been
or
should
be
put
in
place
or
should
be
maintain
so
that
the
gains
of
the
project
could
be
replicated?
• Conduct
of
mapping
on
a
1:5,000
scale
in
the
provinces
of
Rizal,
Laguna
and
Cavite
• Full
blown
IEC
using
1:10K
maps
• Share
results
of
Geomorphic
Impact
Assessment
with
the
regional
offices
of
MGB
• Encourage
LGUs
to
install
landslide
warning
signages
in
high-‐risk
areas
• “Momentum”
to
replicate
the
production
of
thematic
maps
for
all
LGUs
of
the
country.
• Proper
endorsement
to
the
incoming
new
administration
like
NDRRMC
Usec
or
Chairman,
MMDRRMC-‐in-‐charge,
concerned
government
agencies’
incoming
secretaries,
among
others.
• Replicate.
• Production
of
bigger
scale
maps.
• Inclusion
of
GIS
in
the
ISSPs
of
national
government
agencies.
• Provision
of
guidelines
for
horizontal
evaluation
–
beyond
pilot
areas;
as
well
as
for
vertical
evaluation.
• Assessing
the
GMMA’s
vulnerabilities
to
disaster
and
climate
change
risks.
• Go
beyond
pilot
barangays;
venture
into
new
barangays,
say
5
barangay
each
year.
• Review
of
RA
10121;
inform
stakeholders
on
the
results
of
the
review
and
do
amendments.
Ensure
relevance.
• Review
law
and
policy
on
disaster
vis-‐à-‐vis
the
actual
requirements
of
LGUs.
And
the
government
as
a
whole.
• Align
the
law
or
policy
to
the
requirements
of
government,
particularly
the
audit
bodies
(COA).
• Popularization
of
the
guidebook.
As
it
is
now,
it’s
very
technical.
• Review
the
modules
of
trainings.
Make
them
more
responsive
and
effective.
• Same
as
above
and
if
possible
project
to
be
mandated
so
as
to
avoid
negative
impacts
of
political
will.
• Accomplishments
made
with
the
implementation
of
the
projects
as
well
as
the
projects
itself
should
be
promoted,
highlighted
and
shared.
It
may
be
done
with
use
of
IEC
materials
or
with
the
help
of
the
quadmedia.
Please
provide
additional
comments,
if
any,
on
any
aspect
of
the
Project,
its
implementation,
and
its
overall
management
mechanisms
and
procedures.
• The
output-‐based
mode
of
implementation
as
embodied
in
the
Memorandum
of
Agreement
among
UNDP,
OCD
as
implementing
partner
and
other
CSCAND
agencies
as
responsible
partners
is
commendable,
and
proved
to
be
effective
in
achieving
the
desired
outputs
of
the
project.
• Seek
means
to
build
back
better
and
fast.
Time
is
of
the
essence
(in
times
of
disaster).
96
• Contingency
plan
is
effective
if
it
could
be
translated
down
to
the
grassroots.
• Consider
the
integration
of
engineering
and
DRRM
• Other
departments
play
a
vital
role;
thus,
they
need
to
be
involved,
e.g.,
DepED
and
DSWD/CSWD,
particularly
in
terms
of
evacuation
management.
• Federation
of
all
schools
with
DRRM
councils;
conduct
of
training.
• Evaluation
of
drills
conducted
in
the
past;
continue
the
conduct
of
training
to
enhance
capacities.
Schools
can
serve
as
evaluators.
• Schools
can
focus
in
the
conduct
of
incident
command
system
training.
• The
project
has
helped
in
the
introduction
of
other
initiatives
at
the
local
level,
e.g.,
local
government’s
implementation
of
pumping
stations,
relocation
of
settlers,
H&V
signals
and
alarm
facilities.
• Vehicles
provided
by
the
project
are
not
used
for
project
activities
or
trips
related
to
the
project.
• We
are
very
grateful
for
the
project
since
it
has
aided
us
in
activities
and
outputs
that
would
have
otherwise
taken
years/decades
to
accomplish.
It
has
given
us
invaluable
report
especially
in
DRR/CCA
initiatives.
We
look
forward
to
other
projects
that
we
may
participate
in
in
the
future.
97
Annex
7
Consolidated
Comments
Raised
in
the
Interview
A. Progress
towards
Results
• Deliverables
were
completed
although
there
were
several
extensions
in
the
project
implementation
period.
• Although
the
facilities
are
installed
and
tested,
the
MOA
for
maintenance
and
repair
are
beyond.
The
facilities
are
located
in
barangays
and
are
not
accessible
to
municipality
or
MDRRMO
for
maintenance.
• With
the
termination
of
the
project
and
its
sustainability
will
rely
on
the
concerned
LGU,
hopefully
with
its
transition
period
and
even
beyond
can
still
avail
assistance
from
GMMA
READY
or
other
concerned
agencies.
We
have
not
yet
put
into
test
the
capability
or
performance
of
some
installed
equipment,
like
water
level
sensor,
rain
gauges
since
there’s
no
major
disaster
yet
(hopefully
ay
wala
na
nga),
so
we
can’t
yet
attest
to
their
effectiveness.
• Improvement
on
the
data
transmission;
should
be
provided
to
the
local
level
(city/municipality/barangay
levels)
• Monitoring
data
should
also
be
seen
on
internet
and
website
• The
Commission
in
relation
to
other
agencies
still
has
more
work
to
be
sone
in
order
to
realize
its
ultimate
goal
of
having
an
effective
KM-‐COP.
• It
still
needs
to
coordinate
continuously
with
agencies
to
be
able
to
deliver
timely,
relevant
and
accurate
information
to
its
stakeholders.
• Honestly,
project
for
me
did
“exceed”…
• It
is
hard
to
generalize
between
other
project
components.
B. Adaptive
Management
• There
were
delays
in
the
releases
of
few
last
tranches,
despite
follow-‐ups,
and
without
appropriate
advise
from
the
PMO.
• The
“minutes
of
meeting”
to
support
the
increase
in
the
salary
of
Research
Assistants
was
received
almost
5
months
after;
thus,
the
salary
adjustment
was
not
effected
immediately.
• Positive
point
is
the
flexibility
of
the
Project,
in
general,
in
terms
of
“work
program’s
revision
given
the
actual
situation
at
the
local
level
affecting
project
implementation
• The
facilities
are
installed
at
the
barangay
and
not
at
MDRRMO
office.
The
system
must
be
the
possession
of
the
MDRRMO
host.
• Most
of
the
projects
were
all
well
planned,
well
funded
as
well,
constant
monitoring
especially
the
status
of
Contingency
Plan
in
all
LGUs
in
Bulacan.
As
to
CBEWS,
the
equipment
are
not
well
functioning
(sometimes,
there’s
no
reading
even
if
it’s
raining).
98
• Mode
of
transmission
is
centralized
at
the
provincial
level,
access
to
data
nor
the
information
and
monitoring
should
also
be
provided
at
the
city
level.
• The
project
facilitated
convergence
through
the
KM-‐COP.
• Infrastructure
–
webhost
fund
• People
–
CCP
Administration
C. Management
Arrangement
• The
project
must
be
installed
nearer
MDRRMO
for
maintenance
and
inspection
–
for
EC
sirens/early
warning
system.
• Project
management
were
successful,
well
focus
on
the
implementation
and
execution
of
all
projects
in
the
province.
• The
durability,
effectiveness
and
accuracy
of
the
project
is
yet
to
be
prove
since
the
project
is
just
starting
and
no
major
nor
severe
disaster
(typhoon
and
flood)
occur
in
the
area.
• The
PMO
team
constantly
coordinates
to
the
Commission
and
to
all
agencies
so
that
deliverables
are
met.
The
PMO
head
coordinated
closely
with
the
CCC
to
ensure
quality
outputs
are
delivered.
99
Annex
8
Project
Evaluation
Rating
and
Survey
Forms
Rating
for
Outcomes
(Achievement
of
project
objectives
and
expected
outputs)
Rating
Scale
Description
6:
Highly
Satisfactory
(HS)
The
project
had
no
shortcomings
in
the
achievement
of
its
objectives
and
expected
outputs
5:
Satisfactory
(S)
There
were
only
minor
shortcomings
4:
Moderately
Satisfactory
(MS)
There
were
moderate
shortcomings
3.
Moderately
Unsatisfactory
(MU)
The
project
had
significant
shortcomings
2.
Unsatisfactory
(U)
There
were
major
shortcomings
in
the
achievement
of
project
objectives
and
expected
outputs
1.
Highly
Unsatisfactory
(HU)
The
project
had
severe
shortcomings
Rating:
_________
Comments,
if
any:
Rating
for
Effectiveness
(The
project
interventions
are
right
ones)
Rating
Scale
Description
6:
Highly
Satisfactory
(HS)
The
project
had
no
shortcomings
in
putting
in
the
right
interventions
5:
Satisfactory
(S)
There
were
only
minor
shortcomings
4:
Moderately
Satisfactory
(MS)
There
were
moderate
shortcomings
3.
Moderately
Unsatisfactory
(MU)
The
project
had
significant
shortcomings
2.
Unsatisfactory
(U)
There
were
major
shortcomings
in
putting
in
the
right
interventions
1.
Highly
Unsatisfactory
(HU)
The
project
had
severe
shortcomings
Rating:
_________
Comments,
if
any:
100
Rating
for
Efficiency
(The
project
interventions
were
executed
properly)
Rating
Scale
Description
6:
Highly
Satisfactory
(HS)
The
project
had
no
shortcomings
in
properly
executing
interventions
5:
Satisfactory
(S)
There
were
only
minor
shortcomings
4:
Moderately
Satisfactory
(MS)
There
were
moderate
shortcomings
3.
Moderately
Unsatisfactory
(MU)
The
project
had
significant
shortcomings
2.
Unsatisfactory
(U)
There
were
major
shortcomings
in
properly
executing
interventions
1.
Highly
Unsatisfactory
(HU)
The
project
had
severe
shortcomings
Rating:
_________
Comments,
if
any:
Rating
for
M&E
Rating
Scale
Description
6:
Highly
Satisfactory
(HS)
The
project
had
no
shortcomings
in
monitoring
and
evaluation
of
project
progress
and
status,
and
that
proper
solutions
were
properly
undertaken
to
address
implementation
challenges
5:
Satisfactory
(S)
There
were
only
minor
shortcomings
4:
Moderately
Satisfactory
(MS)
There
were
moderate
shortcomings
3.
Moderately
Unsatisfactory
(MU)
The
project
had
significant
shortcomings
2.
Unsatisfactory
(U)
There
were
major
shortcomings
in
monitoring
and
evaluation
of
project
progress
and
status,
and
that
proper
solutions
were
properly
undertaken
to
address
implementation
challenges
1.
Highly
Unsatisfactory
(HU)
The
project
had
severe
shortcomings
Rating:
_________
Comments,
if
any:
101
Rating
for
I&EA
Execution
Rating
Scale
Description
6:
Highly
Satisfactory
(HS)
The
project
had
no
shortcomings
in
the
execution
of
I&EA
for
the
project
and
its
components
5:
Satisfactory
(S)
There
were
only
minor
shortcomings
4:
Moderately
Satisfactory
(MS)
There
were
moderate
shortcomings
3.
Moderately
Unsatisfactory
(MU)
The
project
had
significant
shortcomings
2.
Unsatisfactory
(U)
There
were
major
shortcomings
in
the
execution
of
I&EA
for
the
project
and
its
components
1.
Highly
Unsatisfactory
(HU)
The
project
had
severe
shortcomings
Rating:
_________
Comments,
if
any:
Sustainability
Ratings
Rating
Scale
Description
4.
Likely
(L):
Negligible
risks
to
sustainability
3.
Moderately
Likely
(ML):
Moderate
risks
2.
Moderately
Unlikely
(MU):
Significant
risks
1.
Unlikely
(U):
Severe
risks
Rating:
_________
Comments,
if
any:
Relevance
Ratings
Rating
Scale
Description
2.
Relevant
(R)
Project
intervention/s
is/are
necessary
1.
Not
relevant
(NR)
Project
intervention/s
is/are
not
necessary
Rating:
_________
Comments,
if
any:
102
Impact
Ratings
Rating
Scale
Description
3.
Significant
(S)
Impacts
of
the
project
as
of
the
time
of
evaluation
are
greatly
felt
2.
Minimal
(M)
Impacts
of
the
project
as
of
the
time
of
evaluation
are
felt
but
not
substantially
1.
Negligible
(N)
Impacts
of
the
project
as
of
the
time
of
evaluation
could
hardly
be
felt
Rating:
_________
Comments,
if
any:
103
Annex
9
Summary
of
Project
Evaluation
Ratings
and
Comments
Rating
for
Outcomes
(Achievement
of
project
objectives
and
expected
outputs)
Rating
Scale
Frequency
Percent
Distribution
6:
Highly
Satisfactory
(HS)
23
92
5:
Satisfactory
(S)
1
4
4:
Moderately
Satisfactory
(MS)
1
4
3.
Moderately
Unsatisfactory
(MU)
0
0
2.
Unsatisfactory
(U)
0
0
1.
Highly
Unsatisfactory
(HU)
0
0
Total
25
100
Comments:
• the
project
delivered
all
its
commitments
• all
agencies
participated
and
provided
all
inputs
• components
delivered
their
outputs
Rating
for
Effectiveness
(The
project
interventions
are
right
ones)
Rating
Scale
Frequency
Percent
Distribution
6:
Highly
Satisfactory
(HS)
22
88
5:
Satisfactory
(S)
2
8
4:
Moderately
Satisfactory
(MS)
1
4
3.
Moderately
Unsatisfactory
(MU)
0
0
2.
Unsatisfactory
(U)
0
0
1.
Highly
Unsatisfactory
(HU)
0
0
Total
25
100
Comments:
• the
project
was
seen
as
a
vehicle
in
delivering
what
were
necessary
at
this
time
in
the
most
judicious
and
prudent
manner.
• the
production
of
hazard
maps,
the
preparation
of
CLUPs
and
ZOs,
the
installation
of
early
warning
devices,
and
the
review
and
reformulation
of
local
contingency
plans
are
some
of
the
urgent
activities
that
agencies
and
local
government
units
had
been
trying
to
accomplish
yet
could
not
do
so
because
of
other
priorities
of
their
offices
and
their
limited
skills
and
technical
knowhow.
• the
project
laid
the
foundation
in
which
critical
follow-‐through
activities
could
be
undertaken.
Rating
for
Efficiency
(The
project
interventions
were
executed
properly)
Rating
Scale
Frequency
Percent
Distribution
6:
Highly
Satisfactory
(HS)
20
80
5:
Satisfactory
(S)
3
12
4:
Moderately
Satisfactory
(MS)
1
4
104
3.
Moderately
Unsatisfactory
(MU)
1
4
2.
Unsatisfactory
(U)
0
0
1.
Highly
Unsatisfactory
(HU)
0
0
Total
25
100
Comments:
• the
project
had
enabled
us
to
do
more
than
what
we
could
normally
deliver
given
the
existing
capacities
of
our
offices.
• the
outputs
we
generated
for
the
project
are
part
of
our
mandated
functions
but
the
project
had
allowed
us
to
fast
track
the
delivery
of
outputs.
• the
project
inspired
us
to
see
the
usefulness
of
our
outputs
for
the
benefit
of
vulnerable
communities.
• the
project
also
provided
us
the
opportunity
to
produce
hazard
maps
and
other
information
in
bigger
scales
which
we
thought
are
more
useful
and
relevant
to
communities.
• the
project
had
enabled
the
agency
to
come
closer
to
the
LGUs
which
is
actually
its
mandate.
• the
project
provided
the
opportunity
for
the
agency
to
share
its
technical
expertise
and
in
helping
LGUs
prepare
their
CLUPs
and
ZOs,
as
well
as
for
the
agency
to
revisit
and
enhance
its
technical
capacities.
• the
project
is
seen
as
a
vehicle
for
the
agency
to
revive
its
competencies
in
GIS
application
in
planning
and
decision-‐making.
Rating
for
M&E
Rating
Scale
Frequency
Percent
Distribution
6:
Highly
Satisfactory
(HS)
20
80
5:
Satisfactory
(S)
2
8
4:
Moderately
Satisfactory
(MS)
2
8
3.
Moderately
Unsatisfactory
(MU)
1
4
2.
Unsatisfactory
(U)
0
0
1.
Highly
Unsatisfactory
(HU)
0
0
Total
25
100
Comments:
• the
project
employed
M&E
not
only
to
track
the
progress
of
the
project
and
the
performance
of
other
duty
bearers
but
as
a
tool
in
overall
management
of
the
project.
• Monitoring
of
activities
and
outputs
plus
the
budget
allocated
for
each
of
the
components
of
the
project.
• M&E-‐related
activities
were
done
by
the
implementing
partner
as
means
in
solving
problems
and
challenges
as
well
as
in
finding
solutions
to
such
even
at
an
agency
or
local
level.
105
Rating
for
I&EA
Execution
Rating
Scale
Frequency
Percent
Distribution
6:
Highly
Satisfactory
(HS)
23
92
5:
Satisfactory
(S)
1
4
4:
Moderately
Satisfactory
(MS)
1
4
3.
Moderately
Unsatisfactory
(MU)
0
0
2.
Unsatisfactory
(U)
0
0
1.
Highly
Unsatisfactory
(HU)
0
0
Total
25
100
Comments:
• the
project
ably
developed
a
higher
level
of
awareness
(than
the
baseline)
at
all
levels
–
agency,
local
government,
barangay
and
community
residents.
• the
awareness
heightened
led
to
the
formulation
of
cleared
policies,
action
plans
and
contingency
plans
that
are
responsive
to
disaster
events
and
emergencies.
• duty
bearers
become
more
aware
of
their
strengths,
their
needs
and
requirements
during
emergency
situations,
and
their
capacities
to
perform
their
tasks.
• it
advanced
level
of
commitment
and
support
to
related
activities.
Sustainability
Ratings
Rating
Scale
Frequency
Percent
Distribution
4.
Likely
(L):
45
92
3.
Moderately
Likely
(ML):
3
6
2.
Moderately
Unlikely
(MU):
1
2
1.
Unlikely
(U):
0
0
Total
49
100
Comments:
• allocation
and
use
of
the
local
DRRM
fund
• institutionalization
of
local
DRRM
councils
and
offices
• continuous
conduct
of
EI&A
activities.
Relevance
Ratings
Rating
Scale
Frequency
Percent
Distribution
2.
Relevant
(R)
49
100
1.
Not
relevant
(NR)
0
0
Total
49
100
Comments:
• part
of
our
mandated
functions
• fast
track
delivery
of
outputs
expected
from
agencies.
• The
project
output:
maps
in
bigger
scales
are
more
useful
and
relevant
to
communities.
• the
formulation
of
contingency
plans
enabled
us
to
get
the
seal
of
good
local
governance
award
from
the
DILG
specifically
for
disaster
preparedness
106
Impact
Ratings
Rating
Scale
Frequency
Percent
Distribution
3.
Significant
(S)
46
94
2.
Minimal
(M)
3
6
1.
Negligible
(N)
0
0
Total
49
100
Comments:
• the
mainstreaming
of
DRM/CRM
in
planning
and
regulatory
processes
opened
other
avenues
to
improve
the
performance
of
government
agencies
and
local
government
units.
• specific
policies
and
regulatory
measures
are
envisioned
to
be
formulated,
issued
and
enforced
in
the
immediate
term,
which
would
in
turn
results
to
the
promotion
of
well-‐being
and
quality
life
for
communities,
particularly
the
vulnerable
groups,
and
to
the
maintenance
and
protection
of
the
integrity
of
the
environment.
107
You might also like
- Tesla in ChinaDocument9 pagesTesla in ChinaÁi Nhân Huỳnh NguyễnNo ratings yet
- 80 MT Crawler CraneDocument40 pages80 MT Crawler CraneramyaNo ratings yet
- Risk Assessment ToolsDocument27 pagesRisk Assessment ToolsTAHER AMMARNo ratings yet
- Sulphur VapoursDocument12 pagesSulphur VapoursAnvay Choudhary100% (1)
- Navigating the Stars: Sentinels of the Galaxy, #1From EverandNavigating the Stars: Sentinels of the Galaxy, #1Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (30)
- Risk Assessment For Capital Construction ProjectsDocument27 pagesRisk Assessment For Capital Construction ProjectsM.TauqeerNo ratings yet
- Engrave-O-Matic Custom Laser Engraving CatalogDocument32 pagesEngrave-O-Matic Custom Laser Engraving Catalogds8669No ratings yet
- AdaptationPrinciples 1Document200 pagesAdaptationPrinciples 1luisNo ratings yet
- 04 LCCAP OverviewDocument25 pages04 LCCAP OverviewPhillip Edgar ArnaizNo ratings yet
- ESIA-ppt FentaleDocument46 pagesESIA-ppt FentaleKecha Taye100% (4)
- Sleeping Giants 50 Page FridayDocument49 pagesSleeping Giants 50 Page FridayRandom House Publishing Group100% (2)
- Solution in Detail SAP Signavio Process IntelligenceDocument11 pagesSolution in Detail SAP Signavio Process IntelligencepipocaazulNo ratings yet
- Start Up Slug Catcher and Train 1Document43 pagesStart Up Slug Catcher and Train 1Larbi HammounNo ratings yet
- Hytrel Extrusion Manual PDFDocument28 pagesHytrel Extrusion Manual PDFashkansoheylNo ratings yet
- Closure PrintDocument34 pagesClosure PrintEdificio Vema Bogotá D.C.No ratings yet
- Primer AdpcDocument58 pagesPrimer AdpcImtiaze Shafin RehadNo ratings yet
- Project Managem Ent Plan: Great Lakes & Mississippi River Basin Interbasin Feasibility Study (Glmris)Document22 pagesProject Managem Ent Plan: Great Lakes & Mississippi River Basin Interbasin Feasibility Study (Glmris)Gavin ChiewNo ratings yet
- Priyadi Wuliyanto Dan Albert Eddy HusinDocument9 pagesPriyadi Wuliyanto Dan Albert Eddy HusinditaNo ratings yet
- Cristal: Community-Based Risk Screening Tool - Adaptation & LivelihoodsDocument11 pagesCristal: Community-Based Risk Screening Tool - Adaptation & LivelihoodsGandhiv KafleNo ratings yet
- Project Impact Assessment Systems and ProcedureDocument25 pagesProject Impact Assessment Systems and Procedurejubin funterNo ratings yet
- AfricaadaptationprogrammeDocument81 pagesAfricaadaptationprogrammederecknjaniNo ratings yet
- RM - Q2 Pir 2023Document2 pagesRM - Q2 Pir 2023nhez mainitNo ratings yet
- Executive SummaryDocument2 pagesExecutive SummaryEngr Muhammad Javid NawazNo ratings yet
- Risk Management (2) UpdatedDocument21 pagesRisk Management (2) Updatedthebackbenchers0623No ratings yet
- Rio Project - MTR Report 2017 - FinalDocument90 pagesRio Project - MTR Report 2017 - FinalnoveNo ratings yet
- Ribas 2019Document11 pagesRibas 201918043125rNo ratings yet
- Management of Risks, Uncertainties and Opportunities On ProjectsDocument13 pagesManagement of Risks, Uncertainties and Opportunities On Projectsapi-3707091No ratings yet
- 21) Sustainability Assessment of Flood Mitigation ProjectsDocument9 pages21) Sustainability Assessment of Flood Mitigation ProjectsSusi MulyaniNo ratings yet
- 01-NCCAP Risk Assessment DRAFT4Document12 pages01-NCCAP Risk Assessment DRAFT4Ram Kumar BarathanNo ratings yet
- Coastal Towns Climate Resilience Project Report 1Document19 pagesCoastal Towns Climate Resilience Project Report 1DáshingBôyNo ratings yet
- Mid-Term EvaluationDocument39 pagesMid-Term EvaluationRocío CelesteNo ratings yet
- ESA - MTR TOR - Local Expert - CompleteDocument14 pagesESA - MTR TOR - Local Expert - CompleteAsisNo ratings yet
- SDG Project Session 20 Aug 2021Document23 pagesSDG Project Session 20 Aug 2021Muhammad Fatah ShaikNo ratings yet
- Climate and Disaster Risk Assessment and Its Mainstreaming in Land Use PlanningDocument3 pagesClimate and Disaster Risk Assessment and Its Mainstreaming in Land Use PlanningAD Evaluation&PlanningNo ratings yet
- Contingency PlanningDocument40 pagesContingency Planningswami iyerNo ratings yet
- CRM USAID Projects & Activities 201malDocument23 pagesCRM USAID Projects & Activities 201malIvan CisnerosNo ratings yet
- Project Management MidtermsDocument11 pagesProject Management MidtermsK60 Trần Mai ChiNo ratings yet
- 001 CP enDocument11 pages001 CP enSandeep DhimanNo ratings yet
- Project Administration Manual: Proposed Administration of Grant Kingdom of Tonga: Climate Resilience Sector ProjectDocument105 pagesProject Administration Manual: Proposed Administration of Grant Kingdom of Tonga: Climate Resilience Sector Projectសរ ឧត្តមNo ratings yet
- Project CLEAR Terminal ReportDocument44 pagesProject CLEAR Terminal Reportcarlos-tulali-1309No ratings yet
- HeliyonDocument22 pagesHeliyonkcharris633No ratings yet
- Maddypearce Resume - September 2023Document1 pageMaddypearce Resume - September 2023api-453100892No ratings yet
- Disaster Recovery Project Management A Critical ServiceDocument5 pagesDisaster Recovery Project Management A Critical ServiceKarla SanchezNo ratings yet
- DENR USec TEh Meeting With Leagues (Fnctions Devoled Per Mandanas Ruling RA7160)Document85 pagesDENR USec TEh Meeting With Leagues (Fnctions Devoled Per Mandanas Ruling RA7160)MarijenLeañoNo ratings yet
- T3.M4.L3.S6.Project Closure ReportDocument12 pagesT3.M4.L3.S6.Project Closure Reportchérif hadamineNo ratings yet
- Manufacring ObjectivesDocument6 pagesManufacring ObjectivesHamzaNoumanNo ratings yet
- JD - Senior Manager, DMDP - FinalDocument4 pagesJD - Senior Manager, DMDP - FinalNazmus ShakibNo ratings yet
- Building A Strategic Performance Management Model For Enterprises Investing To Coastal Urban Projects Toward SustainabilityDocument19 pagesBuilding A Strategic Performance Management Model For Enterprises Investing To Coastal Urban Projects Toward SustainabilityMayankNo ratings yet
- Provincial ENR MTPDocument10 pagesProvincial ENR MTPMarijenLeañoNo ratings yet
- Public Private Infrastructure Advisory FacilityDocument14 pagesPublic Private Infrastructure Advisory Facilitycynthia_gomez_agurto1745No ratings yet
- Methodological Tools For Project Risk ManagementDocument6 pagesMethodological Tools For Project Risk ManagementDEJENEESUBALEWNo ratings yet
- NCRMFBriefer v3Document3 pagesNCRMFBriefer v3Michael SiaNo ratings yet
- Sadik Zakir EIADocument24 pagesSadik Zakir EIAsufian abdo jilo100% (1)
- Ch-7 Environmental Impact AssessmentDocument69 pagesCh-7 Environmental Impact AssessmentTadesse MegersaNo ratings yet
- SustainabilityDocument19 pagesSustainabilityRonan Erickson CuaNo ratings yet
- Sustainable Development AnalysisDocument5 pagesSustainable Development Analysishibo paulNo ratings yet
- Concept Paper: Project Number: 50028-002 February 2019Document13 pagesConcept Paper: Project Number: 50028-002 February 2019ECCNo ratings yet
- Applying The Strategic Prospective Approach To Project Management in A Development Project in ColombiaDocument14 pagesApplying The Strategic Prospective Approach To Project Management in A Development Project in ColombiajohanhadiwNo ratings yet
- Seismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Analysis of Large Public School Building Portfolio in Metro ManilaDocument26 pagesSeismic Risk Assessment and Mitigation Analysis of Large Public School Building Portfolio in Metro ManilaChin Chiat LimNo ratings yet
- Toolkit For Measuring Community Disaster Resilience: Guidance Manual Prepared by GOAL May 2015Document63 pagesToolkit For Measuring Community Disaster Resilience: Guidance Manual Prepared by GOAL May 2015Louray JeanNo ratings yet
- Terminal Report: Sorsogon City Climate Change ProjectDocument25 pagesTerminal Report: Sorsogon City Climate Change ProjectCharlene BorladoNo ratings yet
- 05 Concept Note User GuideDocument9 pages05 Concept Note User Guidesonokeling mrqNo ratings yet
- Envm 8006a Lecture 4-SeaDocument38 pagesEnvm 8006a Lecture 4-SeasadgsgNo ratings yet
- Risk Factors On Civil EngineerDocument7 pagesRisk Factors On Civil EngineerWillian 2019No ratings yet
- Housing Planing & MangementDocument4 pagesHousing Planing & MangementarunNo ratings yet
- Instruction Manual - 93 PDFDocument262 pagesInstruction Manual - 93 PDFAndrew Z100% (1)
- ME2208 Fluid Mechanics and Machinery Lab ManualDocument54 pagesME2208 Fluid Mechanics and Machinery Lab ManualSenthil ArumugamNo ratings yet
- Math Model Qs by NRBDocument4 pagesMath Model Qs by NRBapi-3825027No ratings yet
- Prelim Kimanis Micom 241Document5 pagesPrelim Kimanis Micom 241Shah Aizat RazaliNo ratings yet
- TNSTCDocument1 pageTNSTCMohamed MNo ratings yet
- Synthesis and Recrystallization of Dibenzalacetone: Experiment - 4Document2 pagesSynthesis and Recrystallization of Dibenzalacetone: Experiment - 4ARYAN CHAVANNo ratings yet
- 2019 AnalysisDocument3 pages2019 AnalysisVedalam VetriNo ratings yet
- Reviewer 3RD Exam FinalDocument14 pagesReviewer 3RD Exam FinalReane Romblon GerozagaNo ratings yet
- trivia questions 学生版Document9 pagestrivia questions 学生版YING YUNo ratings yet
- Acetaldehyde Solution SDSDocument10 pagesAcetaldehyde Solution SDSJuan Carlos Blanco LeónNo ratings yet
- Project: Study On Building Construction Using Foam ConcreteDocument5 pagesProject: Study On Building Construction Using Foam ConcreteAzhagesanNo ratings yet
- DIN 72552 - WikipediaDocument7 pagesDIN 72552 - Wikipediashalyn matines dabulamanziNo ratings yet
- Whats New in CADWorx 2019 SP1Document6 pagesWhats New in CADWorx 2019 SP1Juan AliagaNo ratings yet
- Clippers and ClampersDocument8 pagesClippers and Clamperspuneeth kumarNo ratings yet
- Bioresource TechnologyDocument11 pagesBioresource TechnologyShaik HussainNo ratings yet
- Sample Theory With Ques. - Organometallic Compounds (NET CH UNIT-3) PDFDocument26 pagesSample Theory With Ques. - Organometallic Compounds (NET CH UNIT-3) PDFPriyanshi VermaNo ratings yet
- Entrepreneurial Spirit': A MonologueDocument7 pagesEntrepreneurial Spirit': A MonologueMrinmay KushalNo ratings yet
- What Is Aplastic Anemia?Document23 pagesWhat Is Aplastic Anemia?Ayi SuwarayiNo ratings yet
- Hot Vibrating Gases Under The Electron Spotlight: Gas MoleculesDocument2 pagesHot Vibrating Gases Under The Electron Spotlight: Gas MoleculesRonaldo PaxDeorumNo ratings yet
- 9 Cartesian System of CoordinatesDocument15 pages9 Cartesian System of Coordinatesaustinfru7No ratings yet
- Soil Resources Inventory For Land Use PlanningDocument9 pagesSoil Resources Inventory For Land Use PlanningmehNo ratings yet
- 1822 B.E Cse Batchno 154Document53 pages1822 B.E Cse Batchno 154maniuyyala65No ratings yet
- Aqa CHM4 W QP Jun09Document20 pagesAqa CHM4 W QP Jun09dharmik47No ratings yet
